[squeak-dev] Squeak VM Speed Centre - validity and basis of improvements 5 Dec
timfelgentreff at gmail.com
Sun Dec 25 20:36:40 UTC 2016
This gets more confusing when we look at RSqueak, because we still see
massive changes in performance there due to ongoing refactorings and
continued changes to the JIT.
I will just delete the older results.
Tim Felgentreff <timfelgentreff at gmail.com> schrieb am So., 25. Dez. 2016,
> No, sorry, my bad. There was no change in hardware.
> The jumps you are seeing stem from a change in how we report our
> measurements. Before, we had scaled all benchmarks to find a number of
> iterations that took longer than 600ms on Cog and then reported the time it
> took for those to run.
> Now we do a first pass to find a number of iterations that take 600ms for
> each VM separately each time, and when we report we divide by the number of
> iterations. This is, for example, why we are now seeing such low numbers
> for simple loops. Before we were reporting something like a few million
> iterations, now we still run those millions of iterations, but we then
> divide to get the time each iteration took.
> I should probably just delete older results, because they are no longer
> And we are already running Pharo tests, the "nocounters" VM is the exact
> same Cog VM running the benchmarks in a Pharo image.
> Also, I should update the website to show the image version, too, because
> we update that sporadically, too.
> Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> schrieb am So., 25. Dez. 2016,
> Probably the tests were run on different hardware.
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Ben Coman wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Tim Felgentreff
> > <timfelgentreff at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We run benchmarks every day on
> >> http://speed.squeak.org/.
> > Reviewing at the timeline http://speed.squeak.org/timeline/
> > I am curious about some of the performance improvements.
> > Several significant improvements seem aligned with Cog commit 2016120519
> > for example AStar...
> > which seems to be "Merge pull request #105 from estebanlm/Cog"
> > https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/network
> > But then also aligned with the same Cog commit, there is a
> > corresponding improvement in the rsqueak performance, for example
> > ArrayAccess...
> > ...which seems to indicate a common cause from an in-Image
> > improvement, for which between 2016120322 and 2016120519 I see "The
> > various scanFor: and scanForEmptySlotFor: implementations only need to
> > access the size of their array once."
> > * Trunk: Kernel-eem.1050.mcz (MethodDictionary)
> > http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Kernel-eem-1050-mcz-td4925618.html
> > * Trunk: System-eem.920.mcz (SystemDictionary)
> > http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-System-eem-920-mcz-td4925619.html
> > So I'm curious do the benchmarks track both Image and VM changes?
> > Perhaps it would be useful to also benchmark Pharo to control for
> > Image changes (now that its returned to the fold using the mainline
> > opensmalltalk-vm)
> > Now I'm further curious, the benchmarks below see a massive jump down
> > for 2016120519 for all data series, but all results are relatively
> > very close to zero, so I wonder are these valid results?
> > ByteStringHash
> > ClassVarBinding
> > Compiler
> > EqualBytes
> > Fib
> > FillArray
> > FillByteArray
> > FillString
> > Graphsearch
> > HashBytes
> > HashWords
> > InstVarAccess
> > IntLoop
> > IntegerByteCodes
> > ModularConvolutionBytes
> > ModularConvolutionWords
> > ModularDotProductBytes
> > ModularDotProductWords
> > ModularSumBytes
> > ModularSumWords
> > PermutationCompositionArray
> > PermutationCompositionWords
> > Richards
> > Send
> > SendPrimitive
> > SendWithManyArguments
> > Slopstone
> > WideStringHash
> > Here all series jump down, and the result range seems valid...
> > FloatLoop
> > Here all series jump, and the result range seems valid. Rsqueak improves
> > ShootoutSpectraNorm
> > Here cog32, cog64 & rsqueakvm32 have a small jump down, but its is
> > very close to zero, so are they valid? rsqueakvm64 shows no change...
> > Blowfish
> > Here only Cog jumps down, RSqueak stays much higher, seems valid..
> > OrderedCollectionRandomInsert
> > Nbody
> > Here only Cog jumps down, RSqueak being already pretty low. The
> > results seem valid
> > AStar
> > ArrayAccess
> > BinaryTree
> > BitBltExampleOne
> > DeltaBlue
> > DoesNotUnderstand
> > Json
> > Mandala
> > MandelbrotIterative1Thread
> > MandelbrotIterative2Thread
> > MandelbrotIterative4Thread
> > MandelbrotIterative8Thread
> > MandelbrotRecursive1Thread
> > MandelbrotRecursive2Thread
> > MandelbrotRecursive4Thread
> > MandelbrotRecursive8Thread
> > OrderedCollectionInsertFirst
> > Here only Cog jumps down, Rsqueak is unchanged or not present, seems
> > Smopstone
> > SplayTree
> > ToolInteraction
> > Here only cog32 jumps down, cog64, rsqueakvm32 & rsqueakvm64 no
> > change, seems valid...
> > Fannkuck
> > Here RSqueak improves, Cog stays the same, seems valid...
> > ShootoutMandelbrot3
> > ShootoutNBody
> > The follow have no significant change around 5 Dec...
> > BitBltColorMapping - all already low
> > DSAGen - all already low
> > KMeans
> > LRUCachePrintString
> > Mandelbrot
> > Polymorphy
> > RaiseToLargeNumber
> > RenderFont
> > ShaLongString
> > ShootoutBinarytrees
> > ShootoutChameneosRedux
> > ShootoutFannkuchRedux
> > ShootoutFasta
> > ShootoutFastaRedux
> > ShootoutKnucleotide
> > ShootoutMeteor
> > ShootoutPidigits
> > ShootoutRegexDNA
> > ShootoutReverseComplement
> > ShootoutThreadring
> > I also see around that time on 2 Dec Fabio says "I have fixed the
> > Squeak-trunk pipeline and we finally get daily updates again." So
> > maybe there were suddenly a bundle of improvements that showed up in
> > one go - but it seems the 2016120322 build should have picked those up
> > and didn't.
> > http://forum.world.st/Squeak-trunk-images-td4925570.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev