This is a bit strange. When I execute the same app without changing anything in my code (just clicking "Record" in the Activity Monitor Instrument), I will get varying CPU on different runs - and it always varies by 10%.
This isn't switching back and forth in any systematic way, so my app can run at 30% CPU or 40% CPU (allowing the CPU to reach an equilibrium after a few seconds of startup).
What's causing this if nothing is changed in my code. Is it due to internal processes on the device?
EDIT:
Also, I don't retain any information or to my knowledge use any time varying functions (apart from the seed in some random functions...)
I think, CPU % will vary a little, for each execution.
The application should be executed for say 10 times, and the average CPU % should be considered as its actual load.
Related
We have added custom code to run on Z1 motes, simulate everything in Cooja and are tracking power consumption using Powertrace.
Since we added additional code to run we would expect the power consumption to go up, but instead it goes down.
Based on the CPU Time reported by Powertrace the CPU seems to be idle for longer time periods.
So we have some questions for a better understanding:
When enabling Powertrace, will the CPU Time of custom code be tracked automatically?
Is it possible, that our code requires to many resources and Powertrace is thus not capable to report correctly?
I've read through Apple's documentation on CPU power consumption, but I still have some lingering questions.
Does 1% CPU usage have the same amount of overhead to keep the CPU powered on as 100% CPU usage?
Does each core power up and down independently?
How long does it take before the CPU powers down after it starts idling?
Will the system commonly be using the CPU for its own tasks, thus keeping the CPU on regardless?
For my app in particular, I'm finding it hard to get the CPU to 0% for any decent amount of time. In a typical session, there's at least going to be a steady stream of UIScrollView delegate calls and UITableViewCell recycle calls as the user moves around the app, let alone interacts with the content. However, based on this post, https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/2876/why-does-gps-on-the-iphone-use-so-much-power, the CPU sounds like a major energy culprit. I'm hoping even a small pause while they use the app would let the CPU save some power, so then I can just work on getting rid of long-running tasks.
This is probably too broad a question to be really answered in this format. All of it "depends" and is subject to change as the OS and hardware change. However, you should start by watching the various energy-related videos from WWDC (there are a lot of them).
In principle, the difference between 0% CPU usage and 1% CPU usage is enormous. However, the difference between 1% and 100% is also enormous. The system absolutely does turn on and off different parts of the CPU (including a whole core) depending on how busy it is, and if it can get down to zero for even a few tens of milliseconds periodically, it can dramatically improve battery life (this is why recent versions of iOS allow you to specify timer tolerances, so it can batch work together and then get back to low-power mode).
All that said, you shouldn't expect to be at zero CPU while the user is actually interacting with your app. Obviously responding to the user is going to take work. You should explore your energy usage with Instruments to look for places that are excessive, but I would expect the CPU to be "doing things" while the user is scrolling (how could it not?) You shouldn't try to artificially inject pauses or anything to let the CPU sleep. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to use the CPU fully if it helps you get done faster, and then do nothing. By that I mean, it is much better to parse all of a massive download (as an example) as fast as you can and use 100% CPU, than to spread it out and use 20% CPU for 5x as long.
The CPU is there to be used. You just don't want to waste it.
I have been trying to determine what is the best instance/size combination for 21 sites on Azure Websites due to what I think is memory pressure. CPU is not an issue < 3%.
I have tried 1 medium and 1/2 smalls. Medium improved overall performance by about 15ms response time on the busiest site (per New Relic). Probably because it double the cores (and memory).
Using the new preview portal's memory quote module:
1 or 2 smalls runs about 80%-90% average memory
1 medium runs about 70%
That makes no sense considering the medium is double the memory. Is the larger memory availability not forcing the GC to run as often on the medium instance?
What % memory can an instance run and it not impact performance.
Is 80-90 OK on the small instance?
Will adding instances to smalls help a memory problem since it basically just creates the same setup across all the instances and will eventually use up the same amount?
I have not been able to isolate any issues on performance on any of the 21 sites, but I don't want a surprise if I am running too close.
Run the sites on a smaller instance and set auto-scale to ramp when it gets to high CPU. Monitor how often it needs to scale and if it scales often just switch to a larger instance size permanently.
Coming back to this for some user edification. It seems that the ~80% range is normal and is just using "what's available." No perf issues or failures ever.
So if you come across this and are worries about the high memory usage, you'll need to keep an eye on it to determine if it's just normal or if you have memory leak.
I know, crappy answer :)
When running my app in the simulator and analyzing its memory allocations using Instruments, the App runs very slow, it runs at less than 1/30 of its normal speed.
The app uses about 50 MB RAM and has approximately 900,000 life objects (according to Instruments).
Could this be the reason for the slow performance?
When running in the app on the device or in the simulator without using Instruments, it performs well (except the memory issue I am trying to debug).
Do you have any idea on how to solve this issue?
Did you encounter slow performance using the Memory Allocation
instruments?
Would you consider having more than 900,000 life
objects "concerning"?
Considering your Analyzer performance issue
In your specific case monitoring the app over a long period of time will not be necessary, as you reach the state of high memory consumption very soon. You could simply stop recording at this point. Then you won't have problems navigating through the different views and statistics to find the cause of the memory issue.
Analyzing the memory issue
Slowing down is normal. 1/30 sounds quite alarming.
You probably should track how the amount of life objects and the memory usage change while you use the app.
It is difficult to decide if a certain amount of life objects at a specific point in time is critical (though 900,000 seems very high).
In general: if life objects and memory usage grow continuously and don't shrink, that is a bad sign.
If you take a look Statistics -> Object Summary (Screenshot), Live Bytes should be a lot smaller than Overall Bytes and the amount of #Living objects should be a lot smaller than the amount of #Transitory objects.
The second thing you can look at, is the Call Tree view.
It gives you a nice overview of which parts of the application are responsible for reserving large amount of memory:
Possible solutions
Once you detect the parts of your code that are responsible for reserving the large memory amount you can look for retain-cycles or you could try to use more autorelease pools in that spot.
Check that you have enough available disk space. I had 8gb left and it seems like that was too little. Instruments was extreeemely slow. Used a minute just to start and didn't quite get around at all.
I cleared out more disk space and then it suddenly went back to being fast as before.
When I use YJP to do cpu-tracing profile on our own product, it is really slow.
The product runs in a 16 core machine with 8GB heap, and I use grinder to run a small load test (e.g. 10 grinder threads) which have about 7~10 steps during the profiling. I have a script to start the product with profiler, start profiling (using controller api) and then start grinder to emulate user operations. When all the operations finish, the script tells the profiler to stop profiling and save snapshot.
During the profiling, for each step in the grinder test, it takes more than 1 million ms to finish. The whole profiling often takes more than 10 hours with just 10 grinder threads, and each runs the test 10 times. Without profiler, it finishes within 500 ms.
So... besides the problems with the product to be profiled, is there anything else that affects the performance of the cpu tracing process itself?
Last I used YourKit (v7.5.11, which is pretty old, current version is 12) it had two CPU profiling settings: sampling and tracing, the latter being much faster and less accurate. Since tracing is supposed to be more accurate I used it myself and also observed huge slowdown, in spite of the statement that the slowdown were "average". Yet it was far less than your results: from 2 seconds to 10 minutes. My code is a fragment of a calculation engine, virtually no IO, no waits on whatever, just reading a input, calculating and output the result into the console - so the whole slowdown comes from the profiler, no external influences.
Back to your question: the option mentioned - samping vs tracing, will affect the performance, so you may try sampling.
Now that I think of it: YourKit can be setup such that it does things automatically, like making snapshots periodically or on low memory, profiling memory usage, object allocations, each of this measures will make profiling slowlier. Perhaps you should make an online session instead of script controlled, to see what it really does.
According to some Yourkit Doc:
Although tracing provides more information, it has its drawbacks.
First, it may noticeably slow down the profiled application, because
the profiler executes special code on each enter to and exit from the
methods being profiled. The greater the number of method invocations
in the profiled application, the lower its speed when tracing is
turned on.
The second drawback is that, since this mode affects the execution
speed of the profiled application, the CPU times recorded in this mode
may be less adequate than times recorded with sampling. Please use
this mode only if you really need method invocation counts.
Also:
When sampling is used, the profiler periodically queries stacks of
running threads to estimate the slowest parts of the code. No method
invocation counts are available, only CPU time.
Sampling is typically the best option when your goal is to locate and
discover performance bottlenecks. With sampling, the profiler adds
virtually no overhead to the profiled application.
Also, it's a little confusing what the doc means by "CPU time", because it also talks about "wall-clock time".
If you are doing any I/O, waits, sleeps, or any other kind of blocking, it is important to get samples on wall-clock time, not CPU-only time, because it's dangerous to assume that blocked time is either insignificant or unavoidable.
Fortunately, that appears to be the default (though it's still a little unclear):
The default configuration for CPU sampling is to measure wall time for
I/O methods and CPU time for all other methods.
"Use Preconfigured Settings..." allows to choose this and other
presents. (sic)
If your goal is to make the code as fast as possible, don't be concerned with invocation counts and measurement "accuracy"; do find out which lines of code are on the stack a large fraction of the time, and why.
More on all that.