I want to optimize a method so it runs in less time. I was using System.currentTimeMillis() to calculate the time it lasted.
However, I just read the System.currentTimeMillis() Javadoc and it says this:
This method shouldn't be used for measuring timeouts or other elapsed
time measurements, as changing the system time can affect the results.
So, if I shouldn't use it to measure the elapsed time, how should I measure it?
Android native Traceview will help you measuring the time and also will give you more information.
Using it is as simple as:
// start tracing to "/sdcard/calc.trace"
Debug.startMethodTracing("calc");
// ...
// stop tracing
Debug.stopMethodTracing();
A post with more information in Android Developers Blog
Also take #Rajesh J Advani post into account.
There are a few issues with System.currentTimeMillis().
if you are not in control of the system clock, you may be reading the elapsed time wrong.
For server code or other long running java programs, your code is likely going to be called in over a few thousand iterations. By the end of this time, the JVM will have optimized the bytecode to the extent where the time taken is actually a lot lesser than what you measured as part of your testing.
It doesn't take into account the fact that there might be other processes on your computer or other threads in the JVM that compete for CPU time.
You can still use the method, but you need to keep the above points in mind. As others have mentioned, a profiler is a much better way of measuring system performance.
Welcome to the world of benchmarking.
As others point out - techniques based on timing methods like currentTimeMillis will only tell you elapsed time, rather than how long the method spent in the CPU.
I'm not aware of a way in Java to isolate timings of a method to how long it spent on the CPU - the answer is to either:
1) If the method is long running (or you run it many times, while using benchmarking rules like do not discard every result), use something like the "time" tool on Linux (http://linux.die.net/man/1/time) who will tell you how long the app spent on the CPU (obviously you have to take away the overhead of the application startup etc).
2) Use a profiler as others pointed out. This has dangers such as adding too much overhead using tracing techniques - if it uses stack sampling, it won't be 100% accurate
3) Am not sure how feasible this is on android - but you could get your bechmark running on a quiet multicore system and isolate a core (or ideally whole socket) to only be able to run your application.
You can use something called System.nanoTime(). As given here
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#nanoTime()
As the document says
This method can only be used to measure elapsed time and is not related to any other notion of system or wall-clock time.
Hope this will help.
SystemClock.elapsedRealtime()
Quoting words in the linked page: elapsedRealtime() and elapsedRealtimeNanos() return the time since the system was booted, and include deep sleep. This clock is guaranteed to be monotonic, and continues to tick even when the CPU is in power saving modes, so is the recommend basis for general purpose interval timing.
Related
I have a Java application and one of the methods is performance-critical.
I created a loop to call this method 10 times and I am checking for performance issues by using the profiler for every iteration. It turned out that the execution time decreases by iterations. Thus, the 10th iteration has a smaller execution time than then 9th iteration.
Any idea why such case is happening?
Could it be due to the loop overheads?
You are warming the CPU caches, and the JVM thus the performance changes.
Profillers put the JVM into an unusual mode, and depending on what profiler approach you are using then it may only be sampling at a regular interval.
I find that profillers are good for giving you relative measurements and to improve your understanding of the code; but always take their reading with a pinch of salt.
Do not trust just a single measurement.
Outside of using profillers, microbenchmarking is a good way to go. Although it is a very tricky subject.
Note that Hotspot tends not to kick in and optimise the byte codes until the target code has been called 10,000 or more times.
http://java.dzone.com/articles/microbenchmarking-java, and How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java? may help to get you started. There is also a lot of good advice on the Mechanical Sympathy Forum.
A good microbenchmarking framework is here http://openjdk.java.net/projects/code-tools/jmh/, it helps keep GC, and other JVM stop-the-world events out of the timings. As well as some guidence on how to prevent Hotspot from optimising out the very code that you are trying to measure.
I am trying to measure the complexity of an algorithm using a timer to measure the execution time, whilst changing the size of the input array.
The code I have at the moment is rather simple:
public void start() {
start = System.nanoTime();
}
public long stop() {
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
start = 0;
return time;
}
It appears to work fine, up until the size of the array becomes very large, and what I expect to be an O(n) complexity algorithm turns out appearing to be O(n^2). I believe that this is due to the threading on the CPU, with other processes cutting in for more time during the runs with larger values for n.
Basically, I want to measure how much time my process has been running for, rather than how long it has been since I invoked the algorithm. Is there an easy way to do this in Java?
Measuring execution time is a really interesting, but also complicated topic. To do it right in Java, you have to know a little bit about how the JVM works. Here is a good article from developerWorks about benchmarking and measuring. Read it, it will help you a lot.
The author also provides a small framework for doing benchmarks. You can use this framework. It will give you exaclty what you needs - the CPU consuming time, instead of just two time stamps from before and after. The framework will also handle the JVM warm-up and will keep track of just-in-time-compilings.
You can also use a performance monitor like this one for Eclipse. The problem by such a performance monitor is, that it doesn't perform a benchmark. It just tracks the time, memory and such things, that your application currently uses. But that's not a real measurement - it's just a snapshot at a specific time.
Benchmarking in Java is a hard problem, not least because the JIT can have weird effects as your method gets more and more heavily optimized. Consider using a purpose-built tool like Caliper. Examples of how to use it and to measure performance on different input sizes are here.
If you want the actual CPU time of the current thread (or indeed, any arbitrary thread) rather than the wall clock time then you can get this via ThreadMXBean. Basically, do this at the start:
ThreadMXBean thx = ManagementFactory.getThreadMXBean();
thx.setThreadCpuTimeEnabled(true);
Then, whenever you want to get the elapsed CPU time for the current thread:
long cpuTime = thx.getCurrentThreadCpuTime();
You'll see that ThreadMXBean has calls to get CPU time and other info for arbitrary threads too.
Other comments about the complexities of timing also apply. The timing of the individual invocation of a piece of code can depend among other things on the state of the CPU and on what the JIT compiler decides to do at that particular moment. The overall scalability behaviour of an algorithm is generally a trend that emerges across a number of invocations and you will always need to be prepared for some "outliers" in your timings.
Also, remember that just because a particular timing is expressed in nanoseconds (or indeed milliseconds) does not mean that the timing actually has that granularity.
I'm writing a MOS 6502 processor emulator as part of a larger project I've undertaken in my spare time. The emulator is written in Java, and before you say it, I know its not going to be as efficient and optimized as if it was written in c or assembly, but the goal is to make it run on various platforms and its pulling 2.5MHZ on a 1GHZ processor which is pretty good for an interpreted emulator. My problem is quite to the contrary, I need to limit the number of cycles to 1MHZ. Ive looked around but not seen many strategies for doing this. Ive tried a few things including checking the time after a number of cycles and sleeping for the difference between the expected time and the actual time elapsed, but checking the time slows down the emulation by a factor of 8 so does anyone have any better suggestions or perhaps ways to optimize time polling in java to reduce the slowdown?
The problem with using sleep() is that you generally only get a granularity of 1ms, and the actual sleep that you will get isn't necessarily even accurate to the nearest 1ms as it depends on what the rest of the system is doing. A couple of suggestions to try (off the top of my head-- I've not actually written a CPU emulator in Java):
stick to your idea, but check the time between a large-ish number of emulated instructions (execution is going to be a bit "lumpy" anyway especially on a uniprocessor machine, because the OS can potentially take away the CPU from your thread for several milliseconds at a time);
as you want to execute in the order of 1000 emulated instructions per millisecond, you could also try just hanging on to the CPU between "instructions": have your program periodically work out by trial and error how many runs through a loop it needs to go between instructions to "waste" enough CPU to make the timing work out at 1 million emulated instructions / sec on average (you may want to see if setting your thread to low priority helps system performance in this case).
I would use System.nanoTime() in a busy wait as #pst suggested earlier.
You can speed up the emulation by generating byte code. Most instructions should translate quite well and you can add a busy wait call so each instruction takes the amount of time the original instruction would have done. You have an option to increase the delay so you can watch each instruction being executed.
To make it really cool you could generate 6502 assembly code as text with matching line numbers in the byte code. This would allow you to use the debugger to step through the code, breakpoint it and see what the application is doing. ;)
A simple way to emulate the memory is to use direct ByteBuffer or native memory with the Unsafe class to access it. This will give you a block of memory you can access as any data type in any order.
You might be interested in examining the Java Apple Computer Emulator (JACE), which incorporates 6502 emulation. It uses Thread.sleep() in its TimedDevice class.
Have you looked into creating a Timer object that goes off at the cycle length you need it? You could have the timer itself initiate the next loop.
Here is the documentation for the Java 6 version:
http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Timer.html
Is it possible to slow down time in the Java virtual machine according to CPU usage by modification of the source code of OpenJDK? I have a network simulation (Java to ns-3) which consumes real time, synchronised loosely to the wall clock. However, because I run so many clients in the simulation, the CPU usage hits 100% and hard guarantees aren't maintained about how long events in the simulator should take to process (i.e., a high amount of super-late events). Therefore, the simulation tops out at around 40 nodes when there's a lot of network traffic, and even then it's a bit iffy. The ideal solution would be to slow down time according to CPU, but I'm not sure how to do this successfully. A lesser solution is to just slow down time by some multiple (time lensing?).
If someone could give some guidance, the source code for the relevant file in question (for Windows) is at http://pastebin.com/RSQpCdbD. I've tried modifying some parts of the file, but my results haven't really been very successful.
Thanks in advance,
Chris
You might look at VirtualBox, which allows one to Accelerate or slow down the guest clock from the command line.
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you want but, with the Joda-time library you can stop time completely. So calls to new Date() or new DateTime() within Joda-time will continously return the same time.
So, you could, in one Thread "stop time" with this call:
DateTimeUtils.setCurrentMillisFixed(System.currentTimeMillis());
Then your Thread could sleep for, say, 5000ms, and then call:
// advance time by one second
DateTimeUtils.setCurrentMillisFixed(System.currentTimeMillis() + 1000);
So provided you application is doing whatever it does based on the time within the system this will "slow" time by setting time forwards one second every 5 seconds.
But, as i said... i'm not sure this will work in your environment.
This question already has answers here:
Is stopwatch benchmarking acceptable?
(13 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I want to do some timing tests on a Java application. This is what I am currently doing:
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
doSomething();
long finishTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("That took: " + (finishTime - startTime) + " ms");
Is there anything "wrong" with performance testing like this? What is a better way?
Duplicate: Is stopwatch benchmarking acceptable?
The one flaw in that approach is that the "real" time doSomething() takes to execute can vary wildly depending on what other programs are running on the system and what its load is. This makes the performance measurement somewhat imprecise.
One more accurate way of tracking the time it takes to execute code, assuming the code is single-threaded, is to look at the CPU time consumed by the thread during the call. You can do this with the JMX classes; in particular, with ThreadMXBean. You can retrieve an instance of ThreadMXBean from java.lang.management.ManagementFactory, and, if your platform supports it (most do), use the getCurrentThreadCpuTime method in place of System.currentTimeMillis to do a similar test. Bear in mind that getCurrentThreadCpuTime reports time in nanoseconds, not milliseconds.
Here's a sample (Scala) method that could be used to perform a measurement:
def measureCpuTime(f: => Unit): java.time.Duration = {
import java.lang.management.ManagementFactory.getThreadMXBean
if (!getThreadMXBean.isThreadCpuTimeSupported)
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
"JVM does not support measuring thread CPU-time")
var finalCpuTime: Option[Long] = None
val thread = new Thread {
override def run(): Unit = {
f
finalCpuTime = Some(getThreadMXBean.getThreadCpuTime(
Thread.currentThread.getId))
}
}
thread.start()
while (finalCpuTime.isEmpty && thread.isAlive) {
Thread.sleep(100)
}
java.time.Duration.ofNanos(finalCpuTime.getOrElse {
throw new Exception("Operation never returned, and the thread is dead " +
"(perhaps an unhandled exception occurred)")
})
}
(Feel free to translate the above to Java!)
This strategy isn't perfect, but it's less subject to variations in system load.
The code shown in the question is not a good performance measuring code:
The compiler might choose to optimize your code by reordering statements. Yes, it can do that. That means your entire test might fail. It can even choose to inline the method under test and reorder the measuring statements into the now-inlined code.
The hotspot might choose to reorder your statements, inline code, cache results, delay execution...
Even assuming the compiler/hotspot didn't trick you, what you measure is "wall time". What you should be measuring is CPU time (unless you use OS resources and want to include these as well or you measure lock contestation in a multi-threaded environment).
The solution? Use a real profiler. There are plenty around, both free profilers and demos / time-locked trials of commercials strength ones.
Using a Java Profiler is the best option and it will give you all the insight that you need into the code. viz Response Times, Thread CallTraces, Memory Utilisations, etc
I will suggest you JENSOR, an open source Java Profiler, for its ease-of-use and no overheads on CPU. You can download it, instrument the code and will get all the info you need about your code.
You can download it from: http://jensor.sourceforge.net/
Keep in mind that the resolution of System.currentTimeMillis() varies between different operating systems. I believe Windows is around 15 msec. So if your doSomething() runs faster than the time resolution, you'll get a delta of 0. You could run doSomething() in a loop multiple times, but then the JVM may optimize it.
Have you looked at the profiling tools in netbeans and eclipse. These tools give you a better handle on what is REALLY taking up all the time in your code. I have found problems that I did not realize by using these tools.
Well that is just one part of performance testing. Depending on the thing you are testing you may have to look at heap size, thread count, network traffic or a whole host of other things. Otherwise I use that technique for simple things that I just want to see how long they take to run.
That's good when you are comparing one implementation to another or trying to find a slow part in your code (although it can be tedious). It's a really good technique to know and you'll probably use it more than any other, but be familiar with a profiling tool as well.
I'd imagine you'd want to doSomething() before you start timing too, so that the code is JITted and "warmed up".
Japex may be useful to you, either as a way to quickly create benchmarks, or as a way to study benchmarking issues in Java through the source code.