From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: GC brokenness in `master' Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:52:34 +0100 Message-ID: <877i2x7x6l.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87ljs7cjtf.fsf@gnu.org> <87bpskzukl.fsf@gnu.org> <871vt8t2c9.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1236729187 30064 80.91.229.12 (10 Mar 2009 23:53:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:53:07 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 11 00:54:23 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LhBm4-0007lt-D4 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:54:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43608 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LhBki-0002YS-NB for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:52:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LhBkg-0002WL-1z for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:52:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LhBke-0002VI-GL for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:52:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52418 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LhBke-0002VF-Dh for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:52:48 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:56676 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LhBkd-000504-RY for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:52:48 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LhBkb-0005Ff-JN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:52:45 +0000 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:52:45 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by reverse-83.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:52:45 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 44 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: reverse-83.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 21 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vent=F4se?= an 217 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:H/eGTSylA54VtjrAUS+gL4m1xwA= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8256 Archived-At: Hello, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > ("subr.bm: subr invocation: simple subr" 700000 total 0.98) > ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr" 700000 total 1.39) > ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg" 700000 total 1.32) > ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg and 3+ parameters" 700000 total 1.63) "Interestingly", this is roughly twice as slow as 1.8 (!). After some manual bisecting, I found the offending commit (dated 2008-08-16): http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=82ae1b8eb3413e6be6bd2aa032986fc7782e85ac Right before this commit we get: ("subr.bm: subr invocation: simple subr" 700000 total 0.58) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr" 700000 total 0.96) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg" 700000 total 0.91) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg and 3+ parameters" 700000 total 1.05) which is comparable with 1.8 (slightly slower). With 1.8, we get: ("subr.bm: subr invocation: simple subr" 700000 total 0.52) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr" 700000 total 0.86) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg" 700000 total 0.79) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg and 3+ parameters" 700000 total 0.93) With BDW-GC HEAD (i.e., after gsubr optimizations), we have: ("subr.bm: subr invocation: simple subr" 700000 total 0.65) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr" 700000 total 0.78) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg" 700000 total 0.79) ("subr.bm: subr invocation: generic subr with rest arg and 3+ parameters" 700000 total 1.07) Strangely enough, the "simple subr" case, which is not GC-intensive, is slower with BDW-GC. This needs further investigation... Thanks, Ludo'.