| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Profiling tool?
Has anyone come across or written a tool that lets you execute a chunk of 6502 that then reports back a disassembly where each instruction is annotated with the total number of cycles it consumed?
Something like unp64 but with added instrumentation, basically.
Closest a quick google found for me was a tool for generating such reports from logs produced by a hardware bus monitor.. |
|
... 23 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
NO :) |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Ah, thanks Slajerek, that's an excellent start.
I'm not seeing any cyclecounts or timestamps in the log output though?
So yes, JackAsser, I am indeed currently writing a python script to parse c64debugger logs and the source PRG to add that information..
I'm sure CyberMojoJoJo could whip up a native profiling tool in C in no time at all, assuming someone else has provided some libraries to do all the heavy lifting. Maybe to scroll flamegraphs in ifli? |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Whee, this is fun.
First bash at collecting stats from the output from c64 debugger; this is a run of tinycrunch (fast variant) decrunching 7.bin from the Pearls for Pigs corpus.
(well ok, second .prg profiled; started building this for a sekret project, output of that one's under wraps for now)
Columns are address, instruction, total cycles spent by that instruction, cumulative percentage of cycles expended, and an ASCII graph of the latter.
Clearly I'd save a fucktonne of cycles if I relocated the decruncher to zero page and inlined the pointers at 0a30 and 0a32 :)
0a00 stx $07 3 0.00%
0a02 ldy #$02 2 0.00%
0a04 sta $0004,y 15 0.00%
0a07 lda ($06),y 15 0.01%
0a09 dey 6 0.01%
0a0a bpl $0a04 8 0.01%
0a0c pha 3 0.01%
0a0d sec 2 0.01%
0a0e bcs $0a40 3 0.01%
0a10 pla 4 0.01%
0a11 iny 2 0.01%
0a12 sta ($04),y 6 0.01%
0a14 rts 6 0.01%
0a15 inc $05 255 0.06%
0a17 clc 102 0.08%
0a18 bcc $0a40 153 0.11%
0a1a beq $0a10 3577 0.80%
0a1c iny 3574 1.49% #
0a1d clc 3574 2.17% #
0a1e lda ($06),y 8935 3.89% ##
0a20 adc $04 5361 4.92% ##
0a22 sta $08 5361 5.95% ###
0a24 txa 3574 6.64% ###
0a25 ora #$f8 3574 7.33% ####
0a27 adc $05 5361 8.36% ####
0a29 sta $09 5361 9.39% #####
0a2b lda ($08),y 8935 11.11% ######
0a2d sta ($04),y 10722 13.17% #######
0a2f iny 22824 17.56% #########
0a30 lda ($08),y 57060 28.53% ##############
0a32 sta ($04),y 68472 41.69% #####################
0a34 txa 22824 46.08% #######################
0a35 sbx #$08 22824 50.47% #########################
0a37 bpl $0a2f 32449 56.71% ############################
0a39 tya 3574 57.40% #############################
0a3a adc $04 5361 58.43% #############################
0a3c sta $04 5361 59.46% ##############################
0a3e bcs $0a15 3625 60.16% ##############################
0a40 lda #$02 3576 60.84% ##############################
0a42 adc $06 5364 61.88% ###############################
0a44 sta $06 5364 62.91% ###############################
0a46 bcs $0a96 3586 63.60% ################################
0a48 ldy #$00 4884 64.54% ################################
0a4a lax ($06),y 12210 66.88% #################################
0a4c bpl $0a1a 6341 68.10% ##################################
0a4e asl 1970 68.48% ##################################
0a4f bmi $0a75 2466 68.96% ##################################
0a51 iny 11768 71.22% ####################################
0a52 lda ($06),y 29420 76.87% ######################################
0a54 sta ($04),y 35304 83.66% ##########################################
0a56 dex 11768 85.93% ###########################################
0a57 bmi $0a51 17155 89.22% #############################################
0a59 tya 994 89.42% #############################################
0a5a adc $06 1491 89.70% #############################################
0a5c sta $06 1491 89.99% #############################################
0a5e bcc $0a63 1463 90.27% #############################################
0a60 inc $07 140 90.30% #############################################
0a62 clc 56 90.31% #############################################
0a63 tya 994 90.50% #############################################
0a64 adc $04 1491 90.79% #############################################
0a66 sta $04 1491 91.07% ##############################################
0a68 bcc $0a6c 1464 91.35% ##############################################
0a6a inc $05 135 91.38% ##############################################
0a6c ldy #$00 994 91.57% ##############################################
0a6e lax ($06),y 2485 92.05% ##############################################
0a70 bpl $0a1a 1325 92.30% ##############################################
0a72 asl 332 92.37% ##############################################
0a73 bpl $0a51 340 92.43% ##############################################
0a75 txa 1308 92.68% ##############################################
0a76 adc $04 1962 93.06% ###############################################
0a78 sta $08 1962 93.44% ###############################################
0a7a lda #$ff 1308 93.69% ###############################################
0a7c adc $05 1962 94.07% ###############################################
0a7e sta $09 1962 94.44% ###############################################
0a80 iny 1308 94.70% ###############################################
0a81 lda ($08),y 3270 95.32% ################################################
0a83 sta ($04),y 3924 96.08% ################################################
0a85 iny 1308 96.33% ################################################
0a86 lda ($08),y 3270 96.96% ################################################
0a88 sta ($04),y 3924 97.71% #################################################
0a8a lda #$01 1308 97.97% #################################################
0a8c adc $04 1962 98.34% #################################################
0a8e sta $04 1962 98.72% #################################################
0a90 bcs $0a9b 1310 98.97% #################################################
0a92 inc $06 3270 99.60% ##################################################
0a94 bne $0a48 1959 99.98% ##################################################
0a96 inc $07 65 99.99% ##################################################
0a98 jmp $0a48 39 100.00% ##################################################
0a9b inc $05 10 100.00% ##################################################
0a9d bcs $0a92 6 100.00% ##################################################
|
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting ChristopherJamtotal cycles spent by that instruction, cumulative percentage of cycles expended, and an ASCII graph of the latter I wonder how log2(total cycles spent by that instruction) and the corresponding ASCII graph (with or without scaling to 64x "#" max.) would look like. I imagine "number of bits to represent number of cycles" to be quite an intuitive curve. :)
Edit: Hmm, that would basically be a scaled and left-justified version of the "total cycles spent by that instruction" (base 10) column. Maybe it should be linear‽ |
| |
Slajerek
Registered: May 2015
Posts: 63 |
Interesting result of the script :)
Yes, lacking of cycle stamp in each log line is a clear overlook by me, apologies :) there's a number of cycles in each jsr/rts marker, so Champ does not need a cycle count per line. Anyway, I definitely have to add better cycle counters handling and logging. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Krill: Yes, I graphed cumulative to make it easy to see at a glance how costly sections of code are, but the counts do indeed make it easy to see individual expensive instructions.
five digits bad, three or four digits less so :)
Slajerek: Thanks!
Oh, and no need to apologize; much as I'm looking forward to future enhancements this is already extraordinarily useful. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting ChristopherJamKrill: Yes, I graphed cumulative to make it easy to see at a glance how costly sections of code are, but the counts do indeed make it easy to see individual expensive instructions. So you're looking for big slopes (high increase of #) when head-parsing the graph line by line from top to bottom, adjusting for increasing "ratio skew"?
I mean the cumulative graph always starts at 0 and ends at 100% in a strictly ascending manner, no matter the program or per-line cycle distribution. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Yes, I look at the slope as a proportion of the final width, rather than current width. Perhaps I should add a right hand border, or a second/lighter fill character between the current total and 100%? (eg ####__)
But yes, even as is you can spot things like the graph going near horizontal at 0a32 and 0a54, and you can also see it going from 1.5% to 89% in the space of 40 or so instructions. |
| |
oziphantom
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 490 |
does you log handle, badlines, sprite DMA, IRQs etc, does it just get tacked on to the cost of the instruction, are you able to filter out what is and isn't IRQ etc. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
This is purely CPU cycles at the moment; I don't have information about VIC bus accesses.
I suspect the only indication I would have that an IRQ has happened would be from parsing the preceding instruction and noting that the next one executed was in an unexpected location; not sure, as I've only tested this with screen blanked and interrupts disabled.
( Slajerek? :D ) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
