[Gc] Re[4]: Performance of bdwgc7.2 had degraded compared to6.8

[Ivan Maidanski]

Hi,

Sorry, I meant compare 6.8 vs 7.0a9.

Regards.

Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:37:27 +0100 "Carsten Kehler Holst" <kehler at pdc.dk>:

> I'm a bit of a cvs novice and cannot find a 7.0a2 branch or revision. (I see
> 7.0a7 and 7.0a9 and 7.1a2)
> Should I get it from a particular date? Or do you mean 7.1a2?
> Regards
> Carsten
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Maidanski [mailto:ivmai at mail.ru] 
> Sent: 7. marts 2011 11:03
> To: Carsten Kehler Holst
> Cc: Manuel.Serrano at inria.fr; gc at linux.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re[2]: Performance of bdwgc7.2 had degraded compared to6.8 - I think
> I found a solution/reason
> 
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> Do you have a suggestion how to remove the regression?
> If not, could you try to compare 6.8 and, e.g., 7.0a2 as there have been a lot
> of various changes between 6.8 and 7.2.
> Thanks.
> 
> Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:48:22 +0100 "Carsten Kehler Holst" <kehler at pdc.dk>:
> 
> > My test program first allocates a list of large atomic blocks to lower 
> > the frequency of the gc.
> > It the allocates a lot of lists and keeping pointers to a few of them 
> > (to get blocks which are not completely empty) This program has a 
> > marked difference in runtime when comparing 6.8 and
> > 7.2a2 (approx. 30%)
> > The performance can be regained by the improved clearing.
> > 
> > The program looks as follows (visual prolog)
> > 
> > class facts
> > l : pointer* := [].
> > list : (testType).
> > bin : (binary).
> > count : positive := 0.
> > 
> > clauses
> > runAllTest():-
> > profileTime::init(),
> > % preallocate some memory 100 blocks of 1 Mb l := [ 
> > memory::allocAtomicHeap(1000000)  || X = std::fromTo(1, 100)], foreach 
> > N = std::fromTo(1,3) do profileTime::start_pr("loop"), 
> > allocTest(80000000),
> > profileTime::stop_pr("loop")
> > end foreach,
> > profileTime::printAndReset(stdio::getOutputStream()).
> > 
> > class predicates
> > allocTest : (positive Count).
> > clauses
> > allocTest(0) :- !.
> > allocTest(N) :-
> > L = getstruct(4), %
> > if count < 10000, N mod 100 = 0 then
> > % save 1 list out of 100 and only the first 10000 assert(list(L)), 
> > count := count + 1 end if, allocTest(N-1).
> > 
> > class predicates
> > getstruct : (byteCount N) -> positive*.
> > clauses
> > getStruct(0) = [] :- !.
> > getstruct(N) = [4|getStruct(N-1)].
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Manuel.Serrano at inria.fr [mailto:Manuel.Serrano at inria.fr]
> > Sent: 5. marts 2011 19:38
> > To: Carsten Kehler Holst
> > Cc: Ivan Maidanski; Ludovic Courtes; gc at linux.hpl.hp.com
> > Subject: Re: Performance of bdwgc7.2 had degraded compared to6.8 - I 
> > think I found a solution/reason
> > 
> > Hi Carsten,
> > 
> > I have tried the following in reclaim.c but I have not noticed any 
> > performance difference between BGL_MEMCPY1, BGL_MEMCPY2, and default.
> > What have you tried exactly?
> > 
> > -----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
> > -----
> > --- gc/bdwgc-7_2alpha5-20110107/reclaim.c       2010-03-05
> > 15:26:16.000000000 +0100
> > +++ /tmp/reclaim.c      2011-03-05 19:32:05.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -142,9 +142,25 @@
> > }
> > #                   else
> > p++; /* Skip link field */
> > +#define BGL_MEMCPY1
> > +#if defined( BGL_MEMCPY1 )
> > +                     switch ( (q-p) % 4 ) {
> > +                        while (p < q ) {
> > +                           case 0: *p++ = 0;
> > +                           case 1: *p++ = 0;
> > +                           case 2: *p++ = 0;
> > +                           case 3: *p++ = 0;
> > +                        }
> > +                     }
> > +#else
> > +#  if defined( BGL_MEMCPY2 )
> > +                     memcpy( p, 0, (q-p)*sizeof(p) );
> > +#  else                      
> > while (p < q) {
> > *p++ = 0;
> > }
> > +#  endif                     
> > +#endif               
> > #                   endif
> > }
> > bit_no += MARK_BIT_OFFSET(sz);
> > -----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
> > -----
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Manuel
> 
> 
> 
> ====================================================
> HWA siger: For at rapportere denne mail som spam:
> Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
> ====================================================
> 
> 
> This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com