[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jan 2020 22:21:28 +0100 |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:53 PM Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> The GUILE 2.0 release
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/428288/
>
> has one big red flag for me.
>
> * Switch to the Boehm-Demers-Weiser garbage collector
>
We can easily measure this, by adding the following to
#(display (version))
#(display " gc time taken: ")
#(display (* 1.0 (/ (cdr (assoc 'gc-time-taken (gc-stats)))
internal-time-units-per-second)))
#(display "\n")
on mozart-hrn-3, over 3 runs, we get
2.0.14 - avg 2.1s
1.8.8 - avg 0.31s
so the new GC is about 5-10x slower than the old one. With GUILE 1.8,
garbage collection covers typically is 10% of the runtime, so all things
equal, the Boehm GC would cause a 1.5-2.0x slowdown in the total.
It would be good to see how the JITting of code impacts Scheme execution.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/22
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, David Kastrup, 2020/01/23
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, Hans Ã…berg, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, David Kastrup, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, David Kastrup, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, David Kastrup, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/24
Re: GUILE 2/3 and string encoding cost, David Kastrup, 2020/01/24