[Gc] Performance evaluation

Boehm, Hans hans.boehm at hp.com
Tue Aug 10 10:23:17 PDT 2010


Manuel -

Thanks.

I'm a little confused about the units and axis labels here.  What exactly is being measured in each case?  The 1.02x figures and the like are throughput?  The other numbers are time?  bigloo3.2b uses GC7.1 by default, bigloo3.4b uses 7.2alpha4 unless stated otherwise?  What does "3.2bMHz" mean?

On benchmarks like Traverse, the time increased significantly from 7.1 to 7.2alpha4?  If I'm reading that correctly, is it easy to generate a GC log for the two cases?  It's possible that we broke something in 7.2alpha4.  But I think we also may have fixed some bugs that could have caused 7.1 to allocate way too much heap space, and hence run faster.

The configuration is the same in both cases, particularly with respect to thread-support (incl. thread-local allocation, parallel marking) and debugging options?

Hans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gc-bounces at linux.hpl.hp.com [mailto:gc-bounces at linux.hpl.hp.com]
> On Behalf Of Manuel.Serrano at sophia.inria.fr
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:05 AM
> To: Bigloo at sophia.inria.fr
> Cc: gc
> Subject: [Gc] Performance evaluation
> 
> I have ran bigloo3.2b against bigloo3.4b compiled with two versions of
> the GC (7.1 and 7.2alpha4). Here are the results:




More information about the Gc mailing list