Lab 4 — Profiling


Rate this product

ECE 459: Programming for Performance
Lab 4 — Profiling 1

One of the keys to improving performance is identifying bottlenecks that are slowing a program down. The key
to doing that is the use of profiling tools. In this assignment, you are provided a simulation of a Hackathon. The
program is slow, and you will use some profiling tools to analyze the code to find out where it’s spending its time.
Based on what you find, you can make changes to the program to speed it up.
Request. Before we get started, a small request: please make sure you don’t leave leftover processes hanging
around. This was an issue in 2021 near the deadline. You can use ps and killall on your processes.
The Hackathon has three different kinds of threads: Students, Idea Generators, and Package Downloaders. The
Idea Generator generates an idea the way many startup companies are pitched, as an equivalent of a known
service for a new audience, such as “LinkedIn for Service Animals”. Students work on ideas, and working on an
idea requires downloading some number of software Packages. The Hackathon simulation runs until all ideas
have been built.
Since we have multiple threads, the order of outputs may differ. However, we can still check for correctness by
taking the xor (exclusive or) of the SHA256 hashes of every idea generated and every package downloaded.
Analyzing and Optimizing the Program
Your goal is to speed up the program. You should therefore do some analysis using profiling tools. You may
have some ideas about where to start immediately, but tools help you check your assumptions and find places for
improvement. The basic workflow is to use profiling tools to identify what’s slow, make changes, and re-evaluate
to see how much (or how little) it improved the runtime of your program. If the program is sped up enough, you’re
all done (and can go on to writing your commit message).
You can use any analysis tools you like, whether or not they were presented in the lectures. However, for the
purposes of your commit log message you should use a flamegraph. A flamegraph is a visualization of profiling
data, meant to show you where a program is spending most of its time. And they look cool, so there’s that.
You probably need to know about how flamegraphs work. To read up on them, see http://www.brendangregg.
com/flamegraphs.html. There are some useful YouTube videos linked there to give you guidance. In particular,
the video at is useful. If you’re in a rush, just watch from the 10 minute mark
to about the 16 minute mark.
For your convenience, we’ve created a Makefile target that runs your program and generates the flamegraph.
You’ll have to run cargo install flamegraph first. Then, you can create a flamegraph by typing “make”. This
will generate an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) file called “flamegraph.svg” containing the graph, which can
be viewed in any graphical viewing program or in your preferred web browser. We believe that you can create
flamegraphs on any of the eceubuntu and ecetesla machines.
Tip. Want to view SVGs in VS Code? I hear that cssho.vscode-svgviewer is helpful.
1v1, 8Mar22
Figure 1: A flamegraph of the starter code
In your commit log message, explain how you used your profiling data to decide what to change. Be sure to include
the flamegraph for the final version of the program (if not standard flamegraph generation, say how you generated
it) and provide some explanation to the reader as to how you used the flamegraph to improve the starter code.
Also let us know which machine you measured your results on (it should be one of the ECE machines so that we
can reproduce it). (Hint: ecetesla2 doesn’t have many threads available!)
Rules/Restrictions. To prevent trivializing the problem, and to make it possible for us to compare your code
against the starter code, here is a list of rules:
• You may change how threads communicate.
• You may change (or remove) output of intermediate checksums, but the checksums printed out at the end
of execution must be identical to the ones generated by the starter code.
• You can move IO into main.
• You may not change the numbers of student, idea, and package downloader threads (but you can add helper
• You can change the provided structs and add more members to them. You can change method signatures as
well, e.g. by adding more parameters.
• The arguments of the program must still be respected (so you can’t change the the number of students/ideas/-
packages managed by each thread), and you must read the data at runtime.
• Must not introduce bugs (memory leaks, deadlocks, etc.).
• Must not trivialize the threads e.g. moving everything to 1 thread to eliminate synchronization. You may
rewrite how the threads communicate (different mutex/constructs usage, for example).
• All publicly observable final behaviour/output for each thread must be preserved. You may change intermediate prints (I/O) but not final ones. For example, IdeaGenerator must add NewIdea Events to the queue. It
must also be responsible for inserting the poison pills (OutOfIdeas) for the Student threads.
• Any threads you create may only be terminated with the OutOfIdeas event (no passing “expected number
of ideas”).
• You must not hardcode any values that are read from files. We will be testing with different files of various
• You can and we encourage you to use any crates that don’t trivialize the problem, e.g. lazy_static and
once_cell. You can use Rayon, though you aren’t required to, and it makes the flamegraph harder to read.
• You can change the makefile, e.g. to add new targets.
• No other changes that trivialize the simulation or execution (e.g. deleting functionality that consumes CPU
We’re continuing to require a commit log message instead of a report. Commit messages should still argue for
why your change should be merged (including the flamegraph) but imply less boilerplate.
Implementation (35 marks) Your code must preserve the original behaviour and cannot violate any of the rules
specified above. You should make changes, and the changes you make should be supported by a profiling tool of
some sort—they can’t just be random changes.
Commit Log (15 marks) 12 marks for explaining the changes that you’ve made, including your expected
speedup results, final flamegraph, and some explanation for the reader. 3 marks for clarity of exposition.
Performance (50 marks) For this lab, we are finally measuring performance (with hyperfine). Your code must
run faster than the starter code. The faster, the better. Marking guidelines:
Speedup (×) (% of marks for performance)
≥ 13.5 100
[12, 13.5) 90
[11, 12) 80
[10, 11) 70
[9, 10) 60
[8, 9) 50
[7, 8) 40
[6, 7) 30
[5, 6) 20
[4, 5) 10
< 4 0
We are going to try to run your code on unloaded systems, but if the TA says that they get a different time than
you do, please contact the TA.
What goes in a commit log
Here’s a suggested structure for your commit log message justifying the pull request.
• Pull Request title explaining the change (less than 80 characters)
• Summary (about 1 paragraph): brief, high-level description of the work done.
• Tech details (3–5 paragraphs): anything interesting or noteworthy for the reviewer about how the work is
• Something about how you tested this code for correctness and know it works (about 1 paragraph)
• Something about how you tested this code for performance and know it is faster (about 3 paragraphs, referring to the flamegraph as appropriate).
Write your message in the file commit-log/ and commit the final generated flamegraph as the file
commit-log/flamegraph.svg. Don’t forget to git add commit-log/flamegraph.svg.
Helgrind complains, even on the unmodified code. Good that you’re running Helgrind. Yep, you’re not required to fix this.
Which times do you care about? Hyperfine mean time, taking range and deviations into account.
Is a shared memory queue OK instead of crossbeam? Yes.
I don’t know, man. [unknown] is 50% of my flamegraph. Set num_pkgs to something big, like 100,000.
Just one commit message? If you want, you can cast your changes as multiple unrelated changes, but you can
also present them as a single change. Probably easier for the TAs as a single change.
I don’t like Events. You can restructure the program to get rid of the Event type if you feel that is appropriate,
e.g. you want to change the channel structure. (I’m not sure this helps!)
5 isn’t enough: I want to write more than 5 paragraphs in the commit log. Yeah, just don’t go overboard,
but do what makes sense.
I don’t like 0s. We aren’t going to test your program with any arguments set to 0.
Oh Nondeterminism! no! You may assume that the number of students >= number of idea generators. It
should be determinstic then. Also, you can assume number of ideas > number of idea generators.
A Blooper to Avoid. Be sure to use hyperfine -i “target/release/lab4” and not hyperfine -i “cargo
run release”.

Lab 4 — Profiling
Open chat
Need help?
Can we help?