From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Bignum performance (was: Shrinking the C core) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:58 +0000 Message-ID: <87y1ih3mc1.fsf@localhost> References: <20230809094655.793FC18A4654@snark.thyrsus.com> <87il9owg0f.fsf@yahoo.com> <83fs4rjq9j.fsf@gnu.org> <87jzu2tvfc.fsf@dataswamp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33612"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Emanuel Berg Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 11 12:28:39 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qUPNn-0008X0-0I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:28:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qUPMp-0003j9-2v; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 06:27:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qUPMn-0003iQ-Jp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 06:27:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qUPMk-0007WC-U0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 06:27:37 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D01240103 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:27:32 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1691749652; bh=dW4kqDdY0+MVUK0k4HMsPoXHEAD5r5aSTWFmlV5olo8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=mEyeC+UTBQt98FZMaF8q9NGkTpGlS6KZzIQu/PwQEguSyt8qmA/uPgsTCl1cTagUd q8F9+lT2OVI6ftUCGHqBc0UgE3rx3Ms52bRU5RhqyT1eqpsMQycRJ3zhfCvUGMIcnS la2OpmBdr3IixcZmf9QhLsGkb63HcDsoFrRsyNPF+ObuBvClzH3KGDWxRQHQ9xiyB0 zfVT0eUmtOr1eH1nO5KqTul4syt+PZvEdlFRgHm2hBKvKiDpE+wKcBxI9snhvJmNfG w1rFZhuKHSTe9gX2m/ThZdjhak0VN8vKdP6NlgLtIN3J0+5UO0Xt3OhDNowjaASEOR 0eDbMwsUDmPVQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4RMg376rXSz9rxK; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:27:31 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87jzu2tvfc.fsf@dataswamp.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:308566 Archived-At: Emanuel Berg writes: > In theory Lisp can be as fast as any other language but in > practice it is not the case with Elisp and Emacs at least. > > Here is a n experiment with stats how Emacs/Elisp compares > to SBCL/CL, for this particular one it shows that Elisp, even > natively compiled, is still +78875% slower than Common Lisp. > > ... > (defun fib (reps num) > (let ((z 0)) > (dotimes (_ reps) > (let ((p1 1) > (p2 1)) > (dotimes (_ (- num 2)) > (setf z (+ p1 p2) > p2 p1 > p1 z)))) > z)) > > (let ((beg (float-time))) > (fib 10000 1000) > (message "%.3f s" (- (float-time) beg)) ) Most of the time is spent in (1) GC; (2) Creating bigint: perf record emacs -Q -batch -l /tmp/fib.eln perf report: Creating bignums: 40.95% emacs emacs [.] allocate_vectorlike GC: 20.21% emacs emacs [.] process_mark_stack 3.41% emacs libgmp.so.10.5.0 [.] __gmpz_sizeinbase GC: 3.21% emacs emacs [.] mark_char_table 2.82% emacs emacs [.] pdumper_marked_p_impl 2.23% emacs libc.so.6 [.] 0x0000000000090076 1.78% emacs libgmp.so.10.5.0 [.] __gmpz_add 1.71% emacs emacs [.] pdumper_set_marked_impl 1.59% emacs emacs [.] arith_driver 1.31% emacs libc.so.6 [.] malloc GC: 1.15% emacs emacs [.] sweep_vectors 1.03% emacs libgmp.so.10.5.0 [.] __gmpn_add_n_coreisbr 0.88% emacs libc.so.6 [.] cfree 0.87% emacs fib.eln [.] F666962_fib_0 0.85% emacs emacs [.] check_number_coerce_marker 0.80% emacs libc.so.6 [.] 0x0000000000091043 0.74% emacs emacs [.] allocate_pseudovector 0.65% emacs emacs [.] Flss 0.57% emacs libgmp.so.10.5.0 [.] __gmpz_realloc 0.56% emacs emacs [.] make_bignum_bits My conclusion from this is that big number implementation is not optimal. Mostly because it does not reuse the existing bignum objects and always create new ones - every single time we perform an arithmetic operation. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at