There is an issue where decreasing nodefraction (which should produce more nodes) ended up reducing the number of displayed nodes. This is because we have an upper limit on number of nodes to display and the number of node-lets counts against that limit. This can cause a problem if a node with large number of node-lets shows up near the front of the list of nodes (e.g., std::allocator_traits::allocate in a heapz profile had 102 node-lets, which caused all subsequent nodes to be dropped). Fixed by limiting the count of charged node-lets per node to maxNodelets (4), which is the maximum number of node-lets we display per node.
|
|
||
50 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
|
52 |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
53 |
|
55 |
|
54 |
|
56 |
|
55 |
|
57 |
|
|
|
||
204 |
|
206 |
|
205 |
|
207 |
|
206 |
|
208 |
|
207 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
209 |
|
210 |
|
210 |
|
211 |
|
211 |
|
|
|
||
242 |
|
242 |
|
243 |
|
243 |
|
244 |
|
244 |
|
245 |
|
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
246 |
|
246 |
|
247 |
|
247 |
|
248 |
|
248 |
|
249 |
|
249 |
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
251 |
|
251 |
|
252 |
|
252 |
|
253 |
|
253 |
|
|
|
||
209 |
|
209 |
|
210 |
|
210 |
|
211 |
|
211 |
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
221 |
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
227 |
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
230 |
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
232 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
258 |
|
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
212 |
|
265 |
|
213 |
|
266 |
|
214 |
|
267 |
|
|
|
||
802 |
|
802 |
|
803 |
|
803 |
|
804 |
|
804 |
|
805 |
|
|
|
|
805 |
|
|
|
806 |
|
|
|
807 |
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
|
809 |
|
|
806 |
|
810 |
|
807 |
|
811 |
|
808 |
|
812 |
|