From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miroslav Silovic Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GUILE GC -- Write barrier for vectors Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:56:28 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <3D32AA5C.90600@puremagic.com> References: <15665.63423.468913.715296@blauw.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026730674 31983 127.0.0.1 (15 Jul 2002 10:57:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:57:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, jantien@xs4all.nl Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17U3Y8-0008Jj-00 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:57:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17U3Qs-0000U2-00; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 06:50:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail01d.rapidsite.net ([207.158.192.52]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17U3Pm-0000NB-00 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 06:49:15 -0400 Original-Received: from www.vams.com (207.201.150.210) by mail01d.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.63s) with SMTP id 083163; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 06:49:05 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: hanwen@cs.uu.nl X-Loop-Detect: 1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:800 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:800 hanwen@cs.uu.nl wrote: >Linked against 1.7.0 without-threads, lily uses approximately 20% of >its time in GC on a 400 mhz PII/SDRAM. In another instance, the same >compile with lilypond linked against 1.5.6 on a 1Ghz PIII/DDR RDRAM, >uses approximately 50% of the total running time (!) for GC'ing. > >Can anyone comment on the difference in running times? I didn't see >much in the changelog that could explain this difference. Could it be >that there is some anomaly that causes the timings to be skewed on the >fast machine? The total speed increase going from the 400mhz machine >to the 1ghz is consistent with the clock freqs. > >Can anyone comment on how to improve the performance? > > I had a similar problem when working with a large number of vector-like things - basilly my application would trigger GC more often than necessary. The reason was that I didn't properly report bytes allocated to Guile (i.e. my use of scm_must_malloc was broken). If you're reporting too much, the GC will trigger all the time. Alternatively, if you're reporting more alloc than freed bytes, you'll get bytes counter mismatch (VERY similar to memory leak), and this will completely confuse GC scheduler. Miro _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel