UIforETW

Pros of PerfView

• More comprehensive analysis tools for performance data
• Supports a wider range of data sources and file formats
• Actively maintained by Microsoft with frequent updates

Cons of PerfView

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex interface
• Larger application size and resource requirements
• Primarily focused on Windows performance analysis

Code Comparison

PerfView:

public void OnTraceLoaded()
{
    var eventSource = new ETWTraceEventSource(fileName);
    var clrParser = new ClrTraceEventParser(eventSource);
    clrParser.AllKeywords(delegate (GCStartTraceData data)
    {
        // Process GC start event
    });
}

UIforETW:

void CUIforETWDlg::OnBnClickedStarttracing()
{
    const auto traceDir = GetTraceDir();
    const auto traceName = GenerateTraceName();
    const auto fullPath = traceDir + traceName;
    StartTracingToFile(fullPath);
}

Summary

PerfView offers more advanced analysis capabilities and supports a broader range of data sources, making it suitable for in-depth performance investigations. However, it has a steeper learning curve and is primarily focused on Windows. UIforETW provides a simpler interface for ETW tracing but with more limited analysis tools. The code comparison shows PerfView's C# implementation for processing trace events, while UIforETW uses C++ for managing trace sessions.

Pros of Orbit

• More comprehensive profiling capabilities, including CPU, GPU, and memory profiling
• Cross-platform support (Windows, Linux)
• Modern, user-friendly interface with real-time data visualization

Cons of Orbit

• Larger project size and complexity, potentially harder to set up and use for simple tasks
• Steeper learning curve due to more advanced features
• May have higher system requirements for optimal performance

Code Comparison

UIforETW (C++):

void CUIforETW::OnTimer(UINT_PTR nIDEvent)
{
    if (nIDEvent == kTimerID)
    {
        UpdateTraceStatus();
    }
}

Orbit (C++):

void OrbitApp::OnTimer() {
  if (capture_window_ != nullptr) {
    capture_window_->UpdateCapture();
  }
  main_window_->RefreshDataView();
}

Both projects use timer-based updates, but Orbit's implementation appears more modular and object-oriented, reflecting its more complex architecture.

Pros of Windows-driver-samples

• Comprehensive collection of driver samples for various Windows devices and technologies
• Official Microsoft repository, ensuring high-quality and up-to-date examples
• Covers a wide range of driver types, including KMDF, UMDF, and WDM

Cons of Windows-driver-samples

• Large repository size, which may be overwhelming for beginners
• Focuses solely on driver development, limiting its usefulness for other Windows programming tasks
• May require more setup and specialized knowledge to run and test samples

Code Comparison

Windows-driver-samples (KMDF driver example):

NTSTATUS
EvtDeviceAdd(
    _In_    WDFDRIVER       Driver,
    _Inout_ PWDFDEVICE_INIT DeviceInit
    )
{
    NTSTATUS status;
    WDF_OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES deviceAttributes;
    WDFDEVICE device;
    PDEVICE_CONTEXT deviceContext;

UIforETW (ETW tracing example):

void CUIforETWDlg::OnBnClickedStarttracing()
{
    if (bIsTracing)
        return;
    std::wstring traceFilename = GetTraceLogFilename();
    std::wstring kernelFilename = traceFilename + L".kernel.etl";
    std::wstring userFilename = traceFilename + L".user.etl";

Pros of pprof

• Language-agnostic profiling tool, supporting multiple programming languages
• Provides both command-line and web-based interfaces for profile analysis
• Offers various visualization options, including flame graphs and call graphs

Cons of pprof

• Requires integration with the application code for data collection
• May have a steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with profiling concepts
• Limited support for real-time profiling and continuous monitoring

Code Comparison

pprof:

import "net/http/pprof"

func main() {
    go func() {
        log.Println(http.ListenAndServe("localhost:6060", nil))
    }()
    // Rest of the application code
}

UIforETW:

#include "etwprof.h"

int main() {
    ETWProfiler profiler;
    profiler.StartProfiling();
    // Application code to be profiled
    profiler.StopProfiling();
    return 0;
}

UIforETW is specifically designed for Windows Event Tracing, offering a user-friendly interface for ETW profiling. It excels in capturing system-wide performance data and provides seamless integration with Windows performance tools. However, it's limited to Windows environments and may require more setup compared to pprof's cross-platform approach.

Pros of FlameGraph

• Language-agnostic and can be used with various profiling tools
• Generates interactive SVG flame graphs for easy visualization
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing workflows

Cons of FlameGraph

• Requires additional steps to generate input data for visualization
• Less user-friendly for those unfamiliar with command-line tools
• Limited built-in analysis features compared to UIforETW

Code Comparison

FlameGraph:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

my %collapsed;
while (<>) {
    chomp;
    my ($stack, $samples) = split /\s+/;
    $collapsed{$stack} += $samples;
}

UIforETW:

void CTraceController::StartTracing()
{
    std::wstring command = L"start " + GetFullTracingFilename();
    int result = _wsystem(command.c_str());
    if (result != 0)
        AfxMessageBox(L"Failed to start tracing.");
}

Summary

FlameGraph is a versatile tool for generating flame graphs from various profiling data sources, while UIforETW is specifically designed for Windows ETW (Event Tracing for Windows) analysis. FlameGraph offers broader compatibility and easier integration, but UIforETW provides a more comprehensive Windows-specific profiling solution with a graphical interface.

Pros of Detours

• More versatile, supporting a wide range of API hooking scenarios
• Actively maintained by Microsoft with regular updates
• Extensive documentation and examples available

Cons of Detours

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to UIforETW
• May introduce overhead in certain scenarios

Code Comparison

UIforETW (simplified ETW tracing):

ULONG status = StartTraceW(&g_traceHandle, KERNEL_LOGGER_NAME, &properties);
if (status != ERROR_SUCCESS)
    return false;

Detours (function hooking):

LONG error = DetourTransactionBegin();
error = DetourUpdateThread(GetCurrentThread());
error = DetourAttach(&(PVOID&)TrueCreateFileW, MyCreateFileW);
error = DetourTransactionCommit();

UIforETW focuses on ETW tracing, while Detours provides a framework for intercepting and modifying function calls. UIforETW is more specialized for performance analysis, whereas Detours offers broader application in various scenarios, including debugging, security, and application customization.