From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:46:06 +0200 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Message-ID: <87d58svh35.fsf@laas.fr> References: <877j42r32u.fsf@laas.fr> <87irnmt0nk.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87ac8x8g35.fsf@laas.fr> <87lksgqv1r.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <877j3zlofr.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1160984784 11955 80.91.229.2 (16 Oct 2006 07:46:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 16 09:46:21 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNAx-00085l-Gm for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:46:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNAw-0006c2-9q for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:46:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNAs-0006be-MF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:46:14 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNAr-0006bG-2n for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:46:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZNAq-0006b7-Td for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:46:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.93.0.15] (helo=laas.laas.fr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GZNJv-0000YZ-8c for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:55:35 -0400 Original-Received: by laas.laas.fr (8.13.7/8.13.4) with SMTP id k9G7k7q5013382; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:46:08 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: hanwen@xs4all.nl X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 25 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vend=E9miaire?= an 215 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu Mail-Followup-To: hanwen@xs4all.nl, guile-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:04:51 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by laas.laas.fr id k9G7k7q5013382 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:6154 Archived-At: Hi Han-Wen, Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > Ludovic Court=E8s schreef: >> >> But please, relax about performance, we still haven't run any meaningf= ul >> benchmark. ;-) > > btw, is there any news on this patch? I'm quite keen on dumping > LilyPond's Rational class in favor of Scheme rationals, but adding gc > mark functions for that is just too much work; BGC would be a nice > soluiton to this. Well, no real news. My "not-so-meaningful benchmarks" (running a loop[*]) reproductively show that "GBGC" is noticeably slower than "real Guile" (1.5 to 2 times slower). This could be due to various reasons. * It could be that too much memory is being retained and subsequently scanned. That's what I initially thought but after looking for this kind of error for some time, I'm not so convinced that this is the case. * Initially, a fair amount of pointer-less memory (e.g., file or string contents) ended up being scanned. I fixed this at some point, and now I don't think there's any such error left. * The GC settings should be tweaked. For instance, increasing BGC's initial heap size (e.g., via the `GC_INITIAL_HEAP_SIZE' environment variable) yields a noticeable improvement (though not sufficient). * Any other reason listed (or not listed ;-)) at http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/debugging.html . At this point, I'm a bit clueless not (yet) completely hopeless. ;-) That is, I think it'd be worth keeping investigating this, but I'm definitely looking for people with a fresh view on the topic to help! :-) I recently merged in changes from HEAD in my BGC branch. If you want to give it a try and if you want to help, you can fetch it this way: $ tla register-archive http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/software/arch-2005/ $ tla get lcourtes@laas.fr--2005-libre/guile-core--boehm-gc--1.9 Thanks, Ludovic. [*] It turns out that even tail-recursive call trigger memory allocation, via `SCM_EXTEND_ENV ()'. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel