Hi All,
kudos to Nicolas for posting some useful numbers in that they provide some context, in this case the other VMs running on the same machine. But wrist slaps to all of you for not specifying:
1. which OS 2. what hardware 3. what C compiler was used to compile the VM
Further kudos for indicating what kind of load the machine is under (one has to run benchmarks on a relatively unstressed machine, even if multicore), and, *really usefully*, what a previous version's benchmark score is on the same machine.
Nicolas' results, Cog ~= 6.5x Interpreter, Stack ~= 1.75x Interpreter are exactly what one should expect for nfib (the sends/sec part of tinyBenchmarks) with the current Cog architecture.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com wrote:
This is not confirmed in regular svn cog branch
1 tinyBenchmarks '380 669 144 bytecodes/sec; 10 473 620 sends/sec' Interpreter VM '371 014 492 bytecodes/sec; 18 512 525 sends/sec' Stack VM '656 410 256 bytecodes/sec; 67 802 547 sends/sec' Cog VM
Nicolas
2013/2/15 Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com:
On 15 February 2013 14:49, Esteban Lorenzano estebanlm@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just compiled a cog vm and a stack vm with latest sources. While the cog works well, the stack vm is having a serious performance drawback, tinyBenchmarks is giving me 5m bytecodes/s, while it should be around 500m... also I see the cpu charge increases to double.
Do you tried to compile a stack vm lately? any idea where to start look for bugs?
just tried on my machine.. the results is discouraging:
1 tinyBenchmarks '4648460 bytecodes/sec; 337199 sends/sec'
thanks, Esteban
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.