From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Where is the eln search path defined Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:39:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87v9kxd18j.fsf@linaro.org> <873681cdzc.fsf@linaro.org> <87sgg0c2ve.fsf@linaro.org> <87h7we9680.fsf@linaro.org> <87eeri8y4r.fsf@linaro.org> <871rnhl1n5.fsf@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="45244"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 18 17:40:36 2020 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 1jahsY-000Bch-T3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 18 May 2020 17:40:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39534 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jahsX-0001Xa-UD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:40:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50906) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jahrZ-0000ac-Kk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:39:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:64546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jahrX-0004tH-Er for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:39:33 -0400 Original-Received: from sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 04IFdSUs029504 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Mon, 18 May 2020 15:39:28 GMT Original-Received: (from akrl@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 04IFdSi0011259; Mon, 18 May 2020 15:39:28 GMT In-Reply-To: <871rnhl1n5.fsf@linaro.org> ("Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e=22's?= message of "Mon, 18 May 2020 16:10:38 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.20; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/18 10:27:52 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:250765 Archived-At: Alex Benn=C3=A9e writes: > Andrea Corallo writes: > >> Alex Benn=C3=A9e writes: >> >>> Andrea Corallo writes: >>> >>>> Alex Benn=C3=A9e writes: >>>> >>>>> Heh - so I patched pdumper to dump the variables at that point and >>>>> re-built: >>>>> >>>>> dump_do_dump_relocation: installation_state:2 ivoncation_dir: >>>>> >>>>> and now the built emacs boots up fine. So I'm guessing there >>>>> must have been a stale pdumper.o that didn't get built for some reaso= n. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the noise. >>>> >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> no issue. Is very good somebody tests Aarch64, thanks for that! >>> >>> While on that subject is there any sort of benchmarking used to see if a >>> given arch is generating good code? Certainly on x86 I noticed a >>> speed-up in gnus but that is more subjective than objective. >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> I believe so far what we have is this: >> >> https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/elisp-benchmarks.html >> >> Note that you have to native compile by hand the tests because this >> package doesn't know about native compilation. > > I did C-h f elisp-benchmark-run and navigated to the file and executed > (native-compile (buffer-file-name)) and waited for it to dump the .eln > filename. The results don't seem that impressive so I don't know if I > did something wrong or if libgccjit is just being poor on Aarch64. The > machine is a TX1 so the individual cores aren't supper powerful anyway > but I was hoping for better: > > * Before Results (byte-compiled) > > | test | non-gc avg (s) | gc avg (s) | gcs avg | tot avg (s) = | tot avg err (s) | > |----------------+----------------+------------+---------+-------------= +-----------------| > | bubble-no-cons | 217.03 | 0.00 | 0 | 217.03 = | 2.66 | > | bubble | 91.18 | 53.77 | 68 | 144.95 = | 3.37 | > | dhrystone | 289.30 | 85.21 | 106 | 374.51 = | 3.80 | > | fibn-rec | 139.91 | 0.00 | 0 | 139.91 = | 0.58 | > | fibn-tc | 164.23 | 0.00 | 0 | 164.23 = | 4.53 | > | fibn | 189.61 | 0.00 | 0 | 189.61 = | 2.42 | > | inclist | 281.67 | 0.00 | 0 | 281.67 = | 5.13 | > | listlen-tc | 263.80 | 0.00 | 0 | 263.80 = | 10.06 | > | nbody | 70.62 | 92.60 | 114 | 163.23 = | 4.30 | > | pidigits | 180.40 | 64.86 | 62 | 245.26 = | 3.08 | > |----------------+----------------+------------+---------+-------------= +-----------------| > | total | 1887.75 | 296.44 | 350 | 2184.19 = | 14.67 | > | | | | | = | | > > * After Results (native-compiled) > > | test | non-gc avg (s) | gc avg (s) | gcs avg | tot avg (s) = | tot avg err (s) | > |----------------+----------------+------------+---------+-------------= +-----------------| > | bubble-no-cons | 206.13 | 0.00 | 0 | 206.13 = | 4.67 | > | bubble | 88.84 | 48.20 | 65 | 137.05 = | 0.73 | > | dhrystone | 301.94 | 75.30 | 102 | 377.24 = | 4.91 | > | fibn-rec | 143.44 | 0.00 | 0 | 143.44 = | 3.26 | > | fibn-tc | 165.60 | 0.00 | 0 | 165.60 = | 1.99 | > | fibn | 186.95 | 0.00 | 0 | 186.95 = | 6.08 | > | inclist | 270.98 | 0.00 | 0 | 270.98 = | 1.57 | > | listlen-tc | 248.98 | 0.00 | 0 | 248.98 = | 5.37 | > | nbody | 71.46 | 82.83 | 110 | 154.30 = | 2.88 | > | pidigits | 192.83 | 61.80 | 59 | 254.63 = | 2.56 | > |----------------+----------------+------------+---------+-------------= +-----------------| > | total | 1877.15 | 268.14 | 336 | 2145.29 = | 12.01 | > > > I guess it's time to start looking at the generated code? Hi Alex, I suspect for some reason we are looking at two byte compiled runs. For One option to verify that is to hack a little the code or other option is to run this version instead: https://gitlab.com/koral/elisp-benchmarks I probably should update the official one to handle native compilation, haven't done it so far due to lack of time and because native compilation "officially" does not exists :) Thanks Andrea --=20 akrl@sdf.org