Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: How can I evaluate the performance/efficiency of my X program?
Message-ID: <9002021428.AA09154@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 90 14:28:15 GMT
References: <1377@cacilj.UUCP>
Sender: root@athena.mit.edu (Wizard A. Root)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 31


    The programs
    linked with this library run slower than the equivalent program run on
    SunView.

You haven't said anything about the server you're using, so it's rather
difficult to guess at where performance problems might be.

    My profiled output at least tells me how many calls I am making.
    Is there some way to figure out how much time each Xlib call is really
    taking?

Assuming your system supports it, compile and link everything -pg, and use
gprof.

    Unfortunately, most of the real work is being done by the server, as
    evidenced by the cpu time (around 5% utilized!).

(5% is large?)  If you really want to understand performance, it will pay
to build a profiled version of the server as well.

    Is the high activity in _XGenerateGCList and _XFlushGCCache indicate that I
    am not using GCs effectively?

Not necessarily, but it depends in part on the server implementation.  On
some servers, switching among a few GCs, changing one or two attributes
at each switch, will be more effective than using a large number of GCs
with static contents.  For most servers in the MIT distribution, however,
using GCs with static contents will probably tend to be faster.  But, it
will be hard to determine real costs without profiling both the client
and the server.