Probe Distribution Techniques to Profile Events in Deployed Software

Profiling deployed software provides valuable insights for quality improvement activities. The probes required for profiling, however, can cause an unacceptable performance overhead for users. In previous work we have shown that significant overhead reduction can be achieved, with limited information loss, through the distribution of probes across deployed instances. However, existing techniques for probe distribution are designed to profile simple events. In this paper we present a set of techniques for probe distribution to enable the profiling of complex events that require multiple probes and that share probes with other events. Our evaluation of the new techniques indicates that, for tight overhead bounds, techniques that produce a balanced event allocation can retain significantly more field information

[1]  Lori L. Pollock,et al.  Characterization and automatic identification of type infeasible call chains , 2002, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[2]  James R. Larus,et al.  Exploiting hardware performance counters with flow and context sensitive profiling , 1997, PLDI '97.

[3]  David F. Redmiles,et al.  An approach to large-scale collection of application usage data over the internet , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[4]  Douglas C. Schmidt,et al.  Skoll: distributed continuous quality assurance , 2004, Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[5]  Sebastian G. Elbaum,et al.  An empirical study of profiling strategies for released software and their impact on testing activities , 2004, ISSTA '04.

[6]  Steven P. Reiss,et al.  Encoding program executions , 2001, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2001.

[7]  Matthew Arnold,et al.  A framework for reducing the cost of instrumented code , 2001, PLDI '01.

[8]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Scalable statistical bug isolation , 2005, PLDI '05.

[9]  Mikhail Dmitriev.  Profiling Java applications using code hotswapping and dynamic call graph revelation , 2004, WOSP '04.

[10]  James R. Larus,et al.  Optimally profiling and tracing programs , 1992, POPL '92.

[11]  14th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering , 2003, 14th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, 2003. ISSRE 2003..

[12]  Alessandro Orso,et al.  Gamma system: continuous evolution of software after deployment , 2002, ISSTA '02.

[13]  Myra B. Cohen,et al.  Profiling Deployed Software: Strategic Probe Placement , 2005 .

[14]  Madeline Diep,et al.  Profiling deployed software: assessing strategies and testing opportunities , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[15]  Michal Young,et al.  Residual test coverage monitoring , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).

[16]  Alessandro Orso,et al.  Leveraging field data for impact analysis and regression testing , 2003, ESEC/FSE-11.

[17]  Susan L. Graham,et al.  Gprof: A call graph execution profiler , 1982, SIGPLAN '82.

[18]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Modern Heuristic Search Methods , 1998 .

[19]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Bug isolation via remote program sampling , 2003, PLDI.

[20]  Jeffrey K. Hollingsworth,et al.  Efficient instrumentation for code coverage testing , 2002, ISSTA '02.

[21]  W. Masri,et al.  An empirical evaluation of test case filtering techniques based on exercising complex information flows , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

[22]  Atanas Rountev,et al.  Static and dynamic analysis of call chains in java , 2004, ISSTA '04.