c++ linux profiling

How do I profile C++ code running on Linux?


How do I find areas of my code that run slowly in a C++ application running on Linux?


  • 32

    If you will provide more data about your development stack you might get better answers. There are profilers from Intel and Sun but you have to use their compilers. Is that an option?

    – Nazgob

    Dec 17, 2008 at 20:38

  • 2

    It is already answered on the following link:…

    May 22, 2012 at 10:12

  • 7

    Most of the answers are code profilers. However, priority inversion, cache aliasing, resource contention, etc. can all be factors in optimizing and performance. I think that people read information into my slow code. FAQs are referencing this thread.

    Mar 17, 2013 at 18:44

  • 4

  • 5

    I used to use pstack randomly, most of the time will print out the most typical stack where the program is most of the time, hence pointing to the bottleneck.

    Dec 15, 2016 at 9:26


If your goal is to use a profiler, use one of the suggested ones.

However, if you’re in a hurry and you can manually interrupt your program under the debugger while it’s being subjectively slow, there’s a simple way to find performance problems.

Just halt it several times, and each time look at the call stack. If there is some code that is wasting some percentage of the time, 20% or 50% or whatever, that is the probability that you will catch it in the act on each sample. So, that is roughly the percentage of samples on which you will see it. There is no educated guesswork required. If you do have a guess as to what the problem is, this will prove or disprove it.

You may have multiple performance problems of different sizes. If you clean out any one of them, the remaining ones will take a larger percentage, and be easier to spot, on subsequent passes. This magnification effect, when compounded over multiple problems, can lead to truly massive speedup factors.

Caveat: Programmers tend to be skeptical of this technique unless they’ve used it themselves. They will say that profilers give you this information, but that is only true if they sample the entire call stack, and then let you examine a random set of samples. (The summaries are where the insight is lost.) Call graphs don’t give you the same information, because

  1. They don’t summarize at the instruction level, and
  2. They give confusing summaries in the presence of recursion.

They will also say it only works on toy programs, when actually it works on any program, and it seems to work better on bigger programs, because they tend to have more problems to find. They will say it sometimes finds things that aren’t problems, but that is only true if you see something once. If you see a problem on more than one sample, it is real.

P.S. This can also be done on multi-thread programs if there is a way to collect call-stack samples of the thread pool at a point in time, as there is in Java.

P.P.S As a rough generality, the more layers of abstraction you have in your software, the more likely you are to find that that is the cause of performance problems (and the opportunity to get speedup).

Added: It might not be obvious, but the stack sampling technique works equally well in the presence of recursion. The reason is that the time that would be saved by removal of an instruction is approximated by the fraction of samples containing it, regardless of the number of times it may occur within a sample.

Another objection I often hear is: “It will stop someplace random, and it will miss the real problem“.
This comes from having a prior concept of what the real problem is.
A key property of performance problems is that they defy expectations.
Sampling tells you something is a problem, and your first reaction is disbelief.
That is natural, but you can be sure if it finds a problem it is real, and vice-versa.

Added: Let me make a Bayesian explanation of how it works. Suppose there is some instruction I (call or otherwise) which is on the call stack some fraction f of the time (and thus costs that much). For simplicity, suppose we don’t know what f is, but assume it is either 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, … 0.9, 1.0, and the prior probability of each of these possibilities is 0.1, so all of these costs are equally likely a-priori.

Then suppose we take just 2 stack samples, and we see instruction I on both samples, designated observation o=2/2. This gives us new estimates of the frequency f of I, according to this:

P(f=x) x  P(o=2/2|f=x) P(o=2/2&&f=x)  P(o=2/2&&f >= x)  P(f >= x | o=2/2)

0.1    1     1             0.1          0.1            0.25974026
0.1    0.9   0.81          0.081        0.181          0.47012987
0.1    0.8   0.64          0.064        0.245          0.636363636
0.1    0.7   0.49          0.049        0.294          0.763636364
0.1    0.6   0.36          0.036        0.33           0.857142857
0.1    0.5   0.25          0.025        0.355          0.922077922
0.1    0.4   0.16          0.016        0.371          0.963636364
0.1    0.3   0.09          0.009        0.38           0.987012987
0.1    0.2   0.04          0.004        0.384          0.997402597
0.1    0.1   0.01          0.001        0.385          1

                  P(o=2/2) 0.385                

The last column says that, for example, the probability that f >= 0.5 is 92%, up from the prior assumption of 60%.

Suppose the prior assumptions are different. Suppose we assume P(f=0.1) is .991 (nearly certain), and all the other possibilities are almost impossible (0.001). In other words, our prior certainty is that I is cheap. Then we get:

P(f=x) x  P(o=2/2|f=x) P(o=2/2&& f=x)  P(o=2/2&&f >= x)  P(f >= x | o=2/2)

0.001  1    1              0.001        0.001          0.072727273
0.001  0.9  0.81           0.00081      0.00181        0.131636364
0.001  0.8  0.64           0.00064      0.00245        0.178181818
0.001  0.7  0.49           0.00049      0.00294        0.213818182
0.001  0.6  0.36           0.00036      0.0033         0.24
0.001  0.5  0.25           0.00025      0.00355        0.258181818
0.001  0.4  0.16           0.00016      0.00371        0.269818182
0.001  0.3  0.09           0.00009      0.0038         0.276363636
0.001  0.2  0.04           0.00004      0.00384        0.279272727
0.991  0.1  0.01           0.00991      0.01375        1

                  P(o=2/2) 0.01375                

Now it says P(f >= 0.5) is 26%, up from the prior assumption of 0.6%. So Bayes allows us to update our estimate of the probable cost of I. If the amount of data is small, it doesn’t tell us accurately what the cost is, only that it is big enough to be worth fixing.

Yet another way to look at it is called the Rule Of Succession.
If you flip a coin 2 times, and it comes up heads both times, what does that tell you about the probable weighting of the coin?
The respected way to answer is to say that it’s a Beta distribution, with average value (number of hits + 1) / (number of tries + 2) = (2+1)/(2+2) = 75%.

(The key is that we see I more than once. If we only see it once, that doesn’t tell us much except that f > 0.)

So, even a very small number of samples can tell us a lot about the cost of instructions that it sees. (And it will see them with a frequency, on average, proportional to their cost. If n samples are taken, and f is the cost, then I will appear on nf+/-sqrt(nf(1-f)) samples. Example, n=10, f=0.3, that is 3+/-1.4 samples.)

Added: To give an intuitive feel for the difference between measuring and random stack sampling:
There are profilers now that sample the stack, even on wall-clock time, but what comes out is measurements (or hot path, or hot spot, from which a “bottleneck” can easily hide). What they don’t show you (and they easily could) is the actual samples themselves. And if your goal is to find the bottleneck, the number of them you need to see is, on average, 2 divided by the fraction of time it takes.
So if it takes 30% of time, 2/.3 = 6.7 samples, on average, will show it, and the chance that 20 samples will show it is 99.2%.

Here is an off-the-cuff illustration of the difference between examining measurements and examining stack samples.
The bottleneck could be one big blob like this, or numerous small ones, it makes no difference.

enter image description here

Measurement is horizontal; it tells you what fraction of time specific routines take.
Sampling is vertical.
If there is any way to avoid what the whole program is doing at that moment, and if you see it on a second sample, you’ve found the bottleneck.
That’s what makes the difference – seeing the whole reason for the time being spent, not just how much.


  • 324

    This is basically a poor man’s sampling profiler, which is great, but you run the risk of a too-small sample size which will possibly give you entirely spurious results.

    May 22, 2009 at 21:56

  • 114

    @Crash: I won’t debate the “poor man” part 🙂 It’s true that statistical measurement precision requires many samples, but there are two conflicting goals – measurement and problem location. I’m focussing on the latter, for which you need precision of location, not precision of measure. So for example, there can be, mid-stack, a single function call A(); that accounts for 50% of time, but it can be in another large function B, along with many other calls to A() that are not costly. Precise summaries of function times can be a clue, but every other stack sample will pinpoint the problem.

    May 23, 2009 at 1:14

  • 50

    … the world seems to think that a call-graph, annotated with call counts and/or average timing, is good enough. It is not. And the sad part is, for those that sample the call stack, the most useful information is right in front of them, but they throw it away, in the interests of “statistics”.

    May 24, 2009 at 18:08

  • 38

    I don’t mean to disagree with your technique. Clearly I rely quite heavily on stack-walking sampling profilers. I’m just pointing out that there are some tools that do it in an automated way now, which is important when you’re past the point of getting a function from 25% to 15% and need to knock it down from 1.2% to 0.6%.

    Jun 2, 2009 at 3:27

  • 19

    -1: Neat idea, but if you’re getting paid to work in even a moderately performance oriented environment this is a waste of everyone’s time. Use a real profiler so we don’t have to come along behind you and fix the actual problems.

    Apr 8, 2010 at 13:26


Use Valgrind with the following options:

valgrind --tool=callgrind ./(Your binary)

This generates a file called callgrind.out.x. Use the kcachegrind tool to read this file. It will give you a graphical analysis of things with results like which lines cost how much.


  • 68

    valgrind is great, but be warned that it will make your program darn slow

    – neves

    Jan 25, 2012 at 20:07

  • 38

    Check out also Gprof2Dot for an amazing alternative way to visualize the output. ./ -f callgrind callgrind.out.x | dot -Tsvg -o output.svg

    – Sebastian

    May 22, 2013 at 13:42

  • 4

    @neves Yes Valgrind is just not very helpful in terms of speed for profiling “gstreamer” and “opencv” applications real-time.

    May 22, 2013 at 20:20

  • 4

    @Sebastian: gprof2dot is now here:

    Apr 27, 2017 at 3:19

  • 2

    One thing to bear in mind is to compile WITH debug symbols included but WITH optimisation, to get something explorable yet with the speed characteristics similar to the actual “release” build.

    Oct 29, 2019 at 12:01


I assume you’re using GCC. The standard solution would be to profile with gprof.

Be sure to add -pg to compilation before profiling:

cc -o myprog myprog.c utils.c -g -pg

I haven’t tried it yet but I’ve heard good things about google-perftools. It is definitely worth a try.

Related question here.

A few other buzzwords if gprof does not do the job for you: Valgrind, Intel VTune, Sun DTrace.


  • 5

    I agree that gprof is the current standard. Just a note, though, Valgrind is used to profile memory leaks and other memory-related aspects of your programs, not for speed optimization.

    Dec 18, 2008 at 15:02

  • 73

    Bill, In vaglrind suite you can find callgrind and massif. Both are pretty useful to profile apps

    Dec 18, 2008 at 15:05

  • 8

    @Bill-the-Lizard: Some comments on gprof :…

    Mar 4, 2010 at 13:23

  • 7

    gprof -pg is only an approximation of callstack profiling. It inserts mcount calls to track which functions are calling which other functions. It uses standard time based sampling for, uh, time. It then apportions times sampled in a function foo() back to the callers of foo(), in proprtion to the numberr of calls. So it doesn’t distinguish between calls of different costs.

    Apr 28, 2012 at 5:45

  • 2

    With clang/clang++, one might consider using gperftools‘s CPU profiler. Caveat: Have not done so myself.

    – einpoklum

    Oct 14, 2019 at 14:27