[Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Spur performance report...

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Apr 22 23:45:26 UTC 2014


Hi David,


On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 03:44:46PM -0700, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> > Hi Nicolas,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Nicolas Cellier <
> > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 2014-04-23 0:05 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >>     I should write a blog post on this, but I can't wait...
> > >>
> > >> In recent days I've written a script to build a Cog VMMaker image from
> > >> Squeak 4.5.  See
> http://www.squeakvm.org/svn/squeak/branches/Cog/image.
> > >>  This has allowed me to run the current Cog VM against Spur
> side-to-side.
> > >>
> > >> To build a Cog VMMaker image on my 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 MacBook Pro
> using
> > >> the current Cog VM takes about 2 and a half minutes:
> > >>
> > >> McStalker.image$ time oscfvm CogVMMaker.image BuildSqueak45Image.st
> > >> real    2m30.671s
> > >> user    2m15.683s
> > >> sys     0m5.283s
> > >>
> > >> To build the equivalent image using Spur takes about 1 and a half
> minutes:
> > >> McStalker.image$ time spurcfvm CogVMMaker-spur.image
> > >> BuildSqueak45Image.st
> > >> real    1m34.943s
> > >> user    1m23.666s
> > >> sys     0m6.810s
> > >>
> > >> Comparing:
> > >>
> > >> 94.943 - 150.671 / 150.671 * 100 -36.99
> > >> 83.666 - 135.681 / 135.681 * 100 -38.34
> > >> 150.671 / 94.943 1.59
> > >> 135.681 / 83.666 1.62
> > >>
> > >> that's about a -37% speedup, or 1.6x faster.
> > >> --
> > >> best,
> > >> Eliot
> > >>
> > >>
> > > So this is loading .mcz from package cache, uncompressing, compiling,
> > > installing the packages.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> >
> > > I presume this qualifies as a macro benchmark...
> > >
> >
> > yes :-)
> >
>
> That's quite impressive. I suspect that if you run this under a time
> profiler
> that you'll see a lot of time going into I/O even though it is using a
> local
> MC cache.  That would mean that this macro benchmark is quite conservative,
> and the actual computational speedup may be considerably better than 1.6x.
>

I think that the i/o time is included in the "sys" sub-total, which will
include reading the image files and the mczs.  The rest is, as they say, up
to us.  So the difference in performance between including and excluding
I/O is -36.99 vs -38.34, or 1.59 vs 1.62.


> Bravo!
>
> Dave
>

-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20140422/0acec19d/attachment.htm


More information about the Vm-dev mailing list