Delivering the FIRST_NONEMPTY_PAINT phase changing event to base/

base/tracked_objects.cc

Index: base/tracked_objects.cc
diff --git a/base/tracked_objects.cc b/base/tracked_objects.cc
index a60e260b23660b31140593f6b7e0b63652a18f8b..d7cc1c6369b9d54071da8762651afc3f669f3959 100644
--- a/base/tracked_objects.cc
+++ b/base/tracked_objects.cc
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
 #include "base/logging.h"
 #include "base/process/process_handle.h"
 #include "base/profiler/alternate_timer.h"
+#include "base/stl_util.h"
 #include "base/strings/stringprintf.h"
 #include "base/third_party/valgrind/memcheck.h"
 #include "base/tracking_info.h"
@@ -93,12 +94,23 @@ inline bool IsProfilerTimingEnabled() {
 // DeathData tallies durations when a death takes place.
 
 DeathData::DeathData() {
-  Clear();
+  count_ = 0;
+  sample_probability_count_ = 0;
+  run_duration_sum_ = 0;
+  run_duration_max_ = 0;
+  run_duration_sample_ = 0;
+  queue_duration_sum_ = 0;
+  queue_duration_max_ = 0;
+  queue_duration_sample_ = 0;
+  last_phase_snapshot_ = nullptr;
 }
 
-DeathData::DeathData(int count) {
-  Clear();
-  count_ = count;
+DeathData::~DeathData() {
+  while (last_phase_snapshot_) {
+    DeathDataPhaseSnapshot* snapshot = last_phase_snapshot_;
+    last_phase_snapshot_ = snapshot->prev;
+    delete snapshot;
+  }
 }
 
 // TODO(jar): I need to see if this macro to optimize branching is worth using.
@@ -117,6 +129,8 @@ void DeathData::RecordDeath(const int32 queue_duration,
   // We'll just clamp at INT_MAX, but we should note this in the UI as such.
   if (count_ < INT_MAX)
     ++count_;
+  if (sample_probability_count_ < INT_MAX)
+    ++sample_probability_count_;
   queue_duration_sum_ += queue_duration;
   run_duration_sum_ += run_duration;
 
@@ -125,14 +139,16 @@ void DeathData::RecordDeath(const int32 queue_duration,
   if (run_duration_max_ < run_duration)
     run_duration_max_ = run_duration;
 
-  // Take a uniformly distributed sample over all durations ever supplied.
-  // The probability that we (instead) use this new sample is 1/count_.  This
-  // results in a completely uniform selection of the sample (at least when we
-  // don't clamp count_... but that should be inconsequentially likely).
-  // We ignore the fact that we correlated our selection of a sample to the run
-  // and queue times (i.e., we used them to generate random_number).
-  CHECK_GT(count_, 0);
-  if (0 == (random_number % count_)) {
+  // Take a uniformly distributed sample over all durations ever supplied during
+  // currrent profiling phase.
+  // The probability that we (instead) use this new sample is
+  // 1/sample_probability_count_. This results in a completely uniform selection
+  // of the sample (at least when we don't clamp sample_probability_count_...
+  // but that should be inconsequentially likely). We ignore the fact that we
+  // correlated our selection of a sample to the run and queue times (i.e., we
+  // used them to generate random_number).
+  CHECK_GT(sample_probability_count_, 0);
+  if (0 == (random_number % sample_probability_count_)) {
     queue_duration_sample_ = queue_duration;
     run_duration_sample_ = run_duration;
   }
@@ -160,14 +176,24 @@ int32 DeathData::queue_duration_sample() const {
   return queue_duration_sample_;
 }
 
-void DeathData::Clear() {
-  count_ = 0;
-  run_duration_sum_ = 0;
+DeathDataPhaseSnapshot* DeathData::last_phase_snapshot() const {
+  return last_phase_snapshot_;
+}
+
+void DeathData::OnProfilingPhaseCompleted(int profiling_phase) {
+  // Snapshotting and storing current state.
+  last_phase_snapshot_ = new DeathDataPhaseSnapshot(
+      profiling_phase, count_, run_duration_sum_, run_duration_max_,
+      run_duration_sample_, queue_duration_sum_, queue_duration_max_,
+      queue_duration_sample_, last_phase_snapshot_);
+
+  // Not touching fields for which a delta can be computed by comparing with a
+  // snapshot from previos phase. Resetting other fields. Sample values will be
+  // reset upon next death recording because sample_probability_count_ is set to
+  // 0.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:06]

This comment needs to discuss *why* it's done this way - which as I understand
to avoid problems in case of races.

If so, I would mention that explicitly and go into detail into what's expected
to happen - i.e. "it's okay if the sample_probability_count_ reset is not seen
by the other thread immediately because XYZ".

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:39]

Done

+  sample_probability_count_ = 0;
   run_duration_max_ = 0;
-  run_duration_sample_ = 0;
-  queue_duration_sum_ = 0;
   queue_duration_max_ = 0;
-  queue_duration_sample_ = 0;
 }
 
 //------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -181,20 +207,31 @@ DeathDataSnapshot::DeathDataSnapshot()
       queue_duration_sample(-1) {
 }
 
-DeathDataSnapshot::DeathDataSnapshot(
-    const tracked_objects::DeathData& death_data)
-    : count(death_data.count()),
-      run_duration_sum(death_data.run_duration_sum()),
-      run_duration_max(death_data.run_duration_max()),
-      run_duration_sample(death_data.run_duration_sample()),
-      queue_duration_sum(death_data.queue_duration_sum()),
-      queue_duration_max(death_data.queue_duration_max()),
-      queue_duration_sample(death_data.queue_duration_sample()) {
+DeathDataSnapshot::DeathDataSnapshot(int count,
+                                     int32 run_duration_sum,
+                                     int32 run_duration_max,
+                                     int32 run_duration_sample,
+                                     int32 queue_duration_sum,
+                                     int32 queue_duration_max,
+                                     int32 queue_duration_sample)
+    : count(count),
+      run_duration_sum(run_duration_sum),
+      run_duration_max(run_duration_max),
+      run_duration_sample(run_duration_sample),
+      queue_duration_sum(queue_duration_sum),
+      queue_duration_max(queue_duration_max),
+      queue_duration_sample(queue_duration_sample) {
 }
 
 DeathDataSnapshot::~DeathDataSnapshot() {
 }
 
+void DeathDataSnapshot::CalculateDelta(const DeathDataSnapshot& older) {

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:05]

How about SubtractDelta()?

Calculate doesn't make it obvious that it's changing this struct.

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:40]

Done, but we are not subtracting the delta, we are getting it. Hence the new
name.

+  count -= older.count;
+  run_duration_sum -= older.run_duration_sum;
+  queue_duration_sum -= older.queue_duration_sum;
+}
+
 //------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 BirthOnThread::BirthOnThread(const Location& location,
                              const ThreadData& current)
@@ -206,8 +243,7 @@ BirthOnThread::BirthOnThread(const Location& location,
 BirthOnThreadSnapshot::BirthOnThreadSnapshot() {
 }
 
-BirthOnThreadSnapshot::BirthOnThreadSnapshot(
-    const tracked_objects::BirthOnThread& birth)
+BirthOnThreadSnapshot::BirthOnThreadSnapshot(const BirthOnThread& birth)
     : location(birth.location()),
       thread_name(birth.birth_thread()->thread_name()) {
 }
@@ -264,6 +300,9 @@ base::LazyInstance<base::Lock>::Leaky
     ThreadData::list_lock_ = LAZY_INSTANCE_INITIALIZER;
 
 // static
+base::ThreadChecker ThreadData::snapshot_thread_checker_;

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:05]

Hmm, this isn't correct actually. I think this causes the initialization of the
object to happen with a static initializer - whereas it should be done on the
snapshot thread.

It should probably be created on the first call to Snapshot() or
OnProfilingPhaseComplete().

Honestly, I was hoping we could check some of the other thread assumptions - the
snapshotting seems low value, so I would remove this one. I guess the value this
provides is ensuring both Snapshot and OnProfilingPhaseCompleted() are not
running at the same time? If so, perhaps we can just do that with a bool (i.e.
snapshot_operation_running_) which we DCHECK is false on entry to Snapshot() and
OnProfilingPhaseCompleted() and set true for the duration of the functions.

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:39]

Fixed the lazy instance initialization.

I think, per-task birth/death thread checks would be too expensive, so I'd be
hesitant to add checks.

Speaking of the snapshot/reset thread check, we really need all resets and
snapshots to happen in the same thread, not just serially. The reason is that
executing serially in different threads may cause the second call to not see
results of the first call, which can lead to unpleasant things like memory leaks
in the list construction.
In addition, a boolean check would catch potential issues with very low
probability and reproability.

+
+// static
 ThreadData::Status ThreadData::status_ = ThreadData::UNINITIALIZED;
 
 ThreadData::ThreadData(const std::string& suggested_name)
@@ -385,9 +424,57 @@ void ThreadData::OnThreadTerminationCleanup() {
 }
 
 // static
-void ThreadData::Snapshot(ProcessDataSnapshot* process_data_snapshot) {
-  ThreadData::SnapshotCurrentPhase(
-      &process_data_snapshot->phased_process_data_snapshots[0]);
+void ThreadData::Snapshot(int current_profiling_phase,
+                          ProcessDataSnapshot* process_data_snapshot) {
+  DCHECK(snapshot_thread_checker_.CalledOnValidThread());
+  BirthCountMap birth_counts;
+
+  // Get an unchanging copy of a ThreadData list.
+  ThreadData* my_list = ThreadData::first();
+
+  // Gather data serially.
+  // This hackish approach *can* get some slighly corrupt tallies, as we are
+  // grabbing values without the protection of a lock, but it has the advantage
+  // of working even with threads that don't have message loops.  If a user
+  // sees any strangeness, they can always just run their stats gathering a
+  // second time.
+  for (ThreadData* thread_data = my_list; thread_data;
+       thread_data = thread_data->next()) {
+    thread_data->SnapshotExecutedTasks(
+        current_profiling_phase,
+        &process_data_snapshot->phased_process_data_snapshots, &birth_counts);
+  }
+
+  // Add births that are still active -- i.e. objects that have tallied a birth,
+  // but have not yet tallied a matching death, and hence must be either
+  // running, queued up, or being held in limbo for future posting.
+  for (const auto& birth_count : birth_counts) {
+    if (birth_count.second > 0) {
+      process_data_snapshot
+          ->phased_process_data_snapshots[current_profiling_phase]
+          .tasks.push_back(TaskSnapshot(

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:05]

Nit: Can you make a local variable pointer outside the loop to:

process_data_snapshot->phased_process_data_snapshots[current_profiling_phase].tasks

Then, this statement can be much cleaner.

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:39]

Done.

+              BirthOnThreadSnapshot(*birth_count.first),
+              DeathDataSnapshot(birth_count.second, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
+              "Still_Alive"));
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+// static
+void ThreadData::OnProfilingPhaseCompleted(int profiling_phase) {
+  DCHECK(snapshot_thread_checker_.CalledOnValidThread());
+  // Get an unchanging copy of a ThreadData list.
+  ThreadData* my_list = ThreadData::first();
+
+  // Add snapshots for all death datas in all threads serially.
+  // This hackish approach *can* get some slighly corrupt tallies, as we are
+  // grabbing values without the protection of a lock, but it has the advantage
+  // of working even with threads that don't have message loops. Any corruption
+  // shouldn't cause "cascading damage" to anything else (in later phases).
+  for (ThreadData* thread_data = my_list; thread_data;
+       thread_data = thread_data->next()) {
+    thread_data->OnProfilingPhaseCompletionOnThread(profiling_phase);
+  }
 }
 
 Births* ThreadData::TallyABirth(const Location& location) {
@@ -419,7 +506,7 @@ Births* ThreadData::TallyABirth(const Location& location) {
   return child;
 }
 
-void ThreadData::TallyADeath(const Births& birth,
+void ThreadData::TallyADeath(const Births& births,
                              int32 queue_duration,
                              const TaskStopwatch& stopwatch) {
   int32 run_duration = stopwatch.RunDurationMs();
@@ -428,7 +515,7 @@ void ThreadData::TallyADeath(const Births& birth,
   const uint32 kSomePrimeNumber = 2147483647;
   random_number_ += queue_duration + run_duration + kSomePrimeNumber;
   // An address is going to have some randomness to it as well ;-).
-  random_number_ ^= static_cast<uint32>(&birth - reinterpret_cast<Births*>(0));
+  random_number_ ^= static_cast<uint32>(&births - reinterpret_cast<Births*>(0));
 
   // We don't have queue durations without OS timer. OS timer is automatically
   // used for task-post-timing, so the use of an alternate timer implies all
@@ -440,20 +527,20 @@ void ThreadData::TallyADeath(const Births& birth,
     queue_duration = 0;
   }
 
-  DeathMap::iterator it = death_map_.find(&birth);
+  DeathMap::iterator it = death_map_.find(&births);
   DeathData* death_data;
   if (it != death_map_.end()) {
     death_data = &it->second;
   } else {
     base::AutoLock lock(map_lock_);  // Lock as the map may get relocated now.
-    death_data = &death_map_[&birth];
+    death_data = &death_map_[&births];
   }  // Release lock ASAP.
   death_data->RecordDeath(queue_duration, run_duration, random_number_);
 
   if (!kTrackParentChildLinks)
     return;
   if (!parent_stack_.empty()) {  // We might get turned off.
-    DCHECK_EQ(parent_stack_.top(), &birth);
+    DCHECK_EQ(parent_stack_.top(), &births);
     parent_stack_.pop();
   }
 }
@@ -475,8 +562,8 @@ void ThreadData::TallyRunOnNamedThreadIfTracking(
   // Even if we have been DEACTIVATED, we will process any pending births so
   // that our data structures (which counted the outstanding births) remain
   // consistent.
-  const Births* birth = completed_task.birth_tally;
-  if (!birth)
+  const Births* births = completed_task.birth_tally;
+  if (!births)
     return;
   ThreadData* current_thread_data = stopwatch.GetThreadData();
   if (!current_thread_data)
@@ -493,18 +580,18 @@ void ThreadData::TallyRunOnNamedThreadIfTracking(
     queue_duration = (start_of_run - completed_task.EffectiveTimePosted())
         .InMilliseconds();
   }
-  current_thread_data->TallyADeath(*birth, queue_duration, stopwatch);
+  current_thread_data->TallyADeath(*births, queue_duration, stopwatch);
 }
 
 // static
 void ThreadData::TallyRunOnWorkerThreadIfTracking(
-    const Births* birth,
+    const Births* births,
     const TrackedTime& time_posted,
     const TaskStopwatch& stopwatch) {
   // Even if we have been DEACTIVATED, we will process any pending births so
   // that our data structures (which counted the outstanding births) remain
   // consistent.
-  if (!birth)
+  if (!births)
     return;
 
   // TODO(jar): Support the option to coalesce all worker-thread activity under
@@ -525,17 +612,17 @@ void ThreadData::TallyRunOnWorkerThreadIfTracking(
   if (!start_of_run.is_null()) {
     queue_duration = (start_of_run - time_posted).InMilliseconds();
   }
-  current_thread_data->TallyADeath(*birth, queue_duration, stopwatch);
+  current_thread_data->TallyADeath(*births, queue_duration, stopwatch);
 }
 
 // static
 void ThreadData::TallyRunInAScopedRegionIfTracking(
-    const Births* birth,
+    const Births* births,
     const TaskStopwatch& stopwatch) {
   // Even if we have been DEACTIVATED, we will process any pending births so
   // that our data structures (which counted the outstanding births) remain
   // consistent.
-  if (!birth)
+  if (!births)
     return;
 
   ThreadData* current_thread_data = stopwatch.GetThreadData();
@@ -543,87 +630,65 @@ void ThreadData::TallyRunInAScopedRegionIfTracking(
     return;
 
   int32 queue_duration = 0;
-  current_thread_data->TallyADeath(*birth, queue_duration, stopwatch);
-}
-
-// static
-void ThreadData::SnapshotAllExecutedTasks(
-    ProcessDataPhaseSnapshot* process_data_phase,
-    BirthCountMap* birth_counts) {
-  // Get an unchanging copy of a ThreadData list.
-  ThreadData* my_list = ThreadData::first();
-
-  // Gather data serially.
-  // This hackish approach *can* get some slighly corrupt tallies, as we are
-  // grabbing values without the protection of a lock, but it has the advantage
-  // of working even with threads that don't have message loops.  If a user
-  // sees any strangeness, they can always just run their stats gathering a
-  // second time.
-  for (ThreadData* thread_data = my_list;
-       thread_data;
-       thread_data = thread_data->next()) {
-    thread_data->SnapshotExecutedTasks(process_data_phase, birth_counts);
-  }
-}
-
-// static
-void ThreadData::SnapshotCurrentPhase(
-    ProcessDataPhaseSnapshot* process_data_phase) {
-  // Add births that have run to completion to |collected_data|.
-  // |birth_counts| tracks the total number of births recorded at each location
-  // for which we have not seen a death count.
-  BirthCountMap birth_counts;
-  ThreadData::SnapshotAllExecutedTasks(process_data_phase, &birth_counts);
-
-  // Add births that are still active -- i.e. objects that have tallied a birth,
-  // but have not yet tallied a matching death, and hence must be either
-  // running, queued up, or being held in limbo for future posting.
-  for (const auto& birth_count : birth_counts) {
-    if (birth_count.second > 0) {
-      process_data_phase->tasks.push_back(TaskSnapshot(
-          *birth_count.first, DeathData(birth_count.second), "Still_Alive"));
-    }
-  }
+  current_thread_data->TallyADeath(*births, queue_duration, stopwatch);
 }
 
 void ThreadData::SnapshotExecutedTasks(
-    ProcessDataPhaseSnapshot* process_data_phase,
+    int current_profiling_phase,
+    PhasedProcessDataSnapshotMap* phased_process_data_snapshots,
     BirthCountMap* birth_counts) {
   // Get copy of data, so that the data will not change during the iterations
   // and processing.
-  ThreadData::BirthMap birth_map;
-  ThreadData::DeathMap death_map;
-  ThreadData::ParentChildSet parent_child_set;
-  SnapshotMaps(&birth_map, &death_map, &parent_child_set);
-
-  for (const auto& death : death_map) {
-    process_data_phase->tasks.push_back(
-        TaskSnapshot(*death.first, death.second, thread_name()));
-    (*birth_counts)[death.first] -= death.first->birth_count();
-  }
+  BirthMap birth_map;
+  DeathsSnapshot deaths;
+  ParentChildSet parent_child_set;
+  SnapshotMaps(current_profiling_phase, &birth_map, &deaths, &parent_child_set);
 
   for (const auto& birth : birth_map) {
     (*birth_counts)[birth.second] += birth.second->birth_count();
   }
 
-  if (!kTrackParentChildLinks)
-    return;
+  for (const auto& death : deaths) {

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:06]

Add a short comment above this outlining what this is doing.

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:39]

Done.

+    (*birth_counts)[death.first] -= death.first->birth_count();
 
-  for (const auto& parent_child : parent_child_set) {

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:05]

Is it intentional that this feature is being removed at the same time?

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:39]

Not quite; feel through cracks :)
I'd remove it though. How about in this CL? Or, I can send a post-CL with a
cleanup. (I prefer post- not pre- CL, since our consumers have already waited
ridiculously long for this feature :( )

-    process_data_phase->descendants.push_back(
-        ParentChildPairSnapshot(parent_child));
+    for (const DeathDataPhaseSnapshot* phase = &death.second; phase;
+         phase = phase->prev) {
+      DeathDataSnapshot death_data = phase->death_data;

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:06]

I'm guessing it's important that you do this on the temporary death_data - so
that we don't subtract the deltas multiple times if multiple snapshots are
taken. If so, I would add a comment pointing this out here since it's an
important detail.

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:39]

Done.

+
+      if (phase->prev)
+        death_data.CalculateDelta(phase->prev->death_data);
+
+      if (death_data.count > 0) {
+        (*phased_process_data_snapshots)[phase->profiling_phase]
+            .tasks.push_back(TaskSnapshot(BirthOnThreadSnapshot(*death.first),
+                                          death_data, thread_name()));
+      }
+    }
   }
 }
 
 // This may be called from another thread.
-void ThreadData::SnapshotMaps(BirthMap* birth_map,
-                              DeathMap* death_map,
+void ThreadData::SnapshotMaps(int profiling_phase,
+                              BirthMap* birth_map,
+                              DeathsSnapshot* deaths,
                               ParentChildSet* parent_child_set) {
   base::AutoLock lock(map_lock_);
+
   for (const auto& birth : birth_map_)
     (*birth_map)[birth.first] = birth.second;
-  for (const auto& death : death_map_)
-    (*death_map)[death.first] = death.second;
+
+  for (const auto& death : death_map_) {
+    deaths->push_back(DeathsSnapshot::value_type(
+        death.first,
+        DeathDataPhaseSnapshot(profiling_phase, death.second.count(),

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 15:39:06]

To make this cleaner, how about adding a Snapshot(phase) method to DeathData,
which can be called both from here and DeathData::OnProfilingPhaseCompleted().
That way, this long ctor invocation is only in one place (while still avoiding
the circular dependency).

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 21:28:39]

I'm not super-thrilled with the additional amount of copying of
DeathDataPhaseSnapshot that this introduces. Like, we create a local object of
type DeathDataPhaseSnapshot inside the helper function, copy it on return of the
function, copy one more time to the object allocated with new(). Do you think
it's worth doing?

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/09 22:19:44]

I believe modern compilers will actually optimize the return value copies out,
per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_value_optimization

But yeah, I missed that the other one is allocated with new, so the return of
the value would have to be copied over that. The other alternative would be to
make it an out param that's filled. But I guess in that case there's extra
zero-ing of the data before we fill it for the 'new' case - but can be avoided
in this loop by re-using the same DeathDataPhaseSnapshot instance on the stack
that's re-set for each entry (and push_backed() which does cause a copy - but
the same one that's already the case).

[vadimt, 2015/04/09 22:42:20]

Given these not-quite-pleasant choices, the current implementation doesn't look
that bad, right?

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/04/10 15:27:26]

All right, though probably worth recording the rationale somewhere in a comment.

[vadimt, 2015/04/14 15:52:05]

Done. Also reordered declarations to avoid forward declarations now that the
circle is broken.

+                               death.second.run_duration_sum(),
+                               death.second.run_duration_max(),
+                               death.second.run_duration_sample(),
+                               death.second.queue_duration_sum(),
+                               death.second.queue_duration_max(),
+                               death.second.queue_duration_sample(),
+                               death.second.last_phase_snapshot())));
+  }
 
   if (!kTrackParentChildLinks)
     return;
@@ -632,6 +697,14 @@ void ThreadData::SnapshotMaps(BirthMap* birth_map,
     parent_child_set->insert(parent_child);
 }
 
+void ThreadData::OnProfilingPhaseCompletionOnThread(int profiling_phase) {
+  base::AutoLock lock(map_lock_);
+
+  for (auto& death : death_map_) {
+    death.second.OnProfilingPhaseCompleted(profiling_phase);
+  }
+}
+
 static void OptionallyInitializeAlternateTimer() {
   NowFunction* alternate_time_source = GetAlternateTimeSource();
   if (alternate_time_source)
@@ -909,11 +982,36 @@ ThreadData* TaskStopwatch::GetThreadData() const {
 }
 
 //------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// DeathDataPhaseSnapshot
+
+DeathDataPhaseSnapshot::DeathDataPhaseSnapshot(int profiling_phase,
+                                               int count,
+                                               int32 run_duration_sum,
+                                               int32 run_duration_max,
+                                               int32 run_duration_sample,
+                                               int32 queue_duration_sum,
+                                               int32 queue_duration_max,
+                                               int32 queue_duration_sample,
+                                               DeathDataPhaseSnapshot* prev)
+    : profiling_phase(profiling_phase),
+      death_data(count,
+                 run_duration_sum,
+                 run_duration_max,
+                 run_duration_sample,
+                 queue_duration_sum,
+                 queue_duration_max,
+                 queue_duration_sample),
+      prev(prev) {
+}
+
+//------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// TaskSnapshot
+
 TaskSnapshot::TaskSnapshot() {
 }
 
-TaskSnapshot::TaskSnapshot(const BirthOnThread& birth,
-                           const DeathData& death_data,
+TaskSnapshot::TaskSnapshot(const BirthOnThreadSnapshot& birth,
+                           const DeathDataSnapshot& death_data,
                            const std::string& death_thread_name)
     : birth(birth),
       death_data(death_data),