From: "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de>
To: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: FWD: Test reader speed of Guile 3.0.6 in Lilypond
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:21:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tup8nzrz.fsf@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87czvwj230.fsf@web.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4335 bytes --]
More tests were done by Thomas Morley, which also give a perspective on
the initial very negative reaction by the lilypond developers, as it
shows the abysmal speed that initial versions of Guile2-Lilypond
integration had.
Thomas Morley <thomasmorley65@gmail.com> writes:
> Am Fr., 12. März 2021 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley
> <thomasmorley65@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Am Do., 11. März 2021 um 22:47 Uhr schrieb Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
>
>> > Do you already have results?
>>
>> Currently my regular job eats up all my time.
>> Probably I'll find some free time at upcoming weekend, not sure though...
>> If so, to which guile-version should I compare, guile-1.8 (which is
>> still LilyPond-default) or a certain guile-2/3-version?
>
> Found some time today...
>
> I tested a huge ly-score, once sent by Jean-Charles for testing
> different guile-versions:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00948.html
> Thanks again!
> I made it compilable with recent ly-master out of
> 55ca32d951dd17556df8d0332b861f0cd189379a
> (though I didn't fix all warnings and programming errors)
>
> Tested with these guile versions:
> guile-1.8.8 from tarball
> guile-2-2-6 out of a69b567d97f7c9193924c775e1dd86e43a35b8bd
> guile-3.0.6 from master, i.e. out of 85433fc2b122dc78342c3c83941949d1d9318399
> (although (version) says: 3.0.5.116-85433)
>
> There are some guile-warnings, multiple instances of:
> WARNING: (#{ g478}#): `smallCaps-markup' imported from both (lily) and
> (#{ g171}#)
> WARNING: (scm framework-ps): imported module (lily) overrides core binding `_'
> The latter one is about gettext and PITA.
>
>
> I compiled Urtext.ly from the tarball linked above (giving a 158 pages pdf):
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> guile-1.8.8
>
> real 4m37,304s
> user 4m14,144s
> sys 0m7,717s
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> guile-2.2.6, (version) says: 2.2.6.7-9a11b
>
> real 7m18,995s
> user 6m41,808s
> sys 0m11,960s
>
> eating much more memory than guile-1.8.8
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> guile-3.0.6, (version) says: 3.0.5.116-85433
>
> real 5m49,587s
> user 5m11,033s
> sys 0m9,488s
>
> eating a little more memory than with guile-1.8.8 but far less than guile-2.2.6
…
> I tested _one_ huge file.
> In it there's some custom-code to deal with accented letters like in
> "éèêëáàâäíìîïóòôöúùûüçœæ", which guile-1 was not able to cope with in
> many cases.
> I think guile-2/3 does a better job in this regard.
> Btw, this is my strongest argument to switch to guile-2/3
> I could eliminate that code for guile-2/3 runs and take timing values again.
> Maybe it has positive impact.
> Interested? Has to wait for the weekend, though.
>
> Otoh, adjusting small things in a small file like finding the needed value for
> \override Grob.X-offset = FINDME
> is a pain with guile-2/3 because of the already mentioned startup delay.
> The strongest argument against switching to guile-2/3, imho.
…
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> Interestingly I found some older timing values from former tests:
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> released lilypond-2.19.52 with guile-1.8.7
>
> real 8m16.191s
> user 6m39.864s
> sys 0m10.860s
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> with guile-versions from 2.0.14 and 2.1.7 I noted:
>
> Best result was:
> real 25m17.082s
> user 31m1.668s
> sys 0m5.480s
>
> Worst result was:
> real 77m44.348s
> user 100m40.324s
> sys 0m18.932s
>
> Though, my noted former results are a little messy: I can't say
> anymore which guile-version with which lilypond-patches was
> best/worst.
>
> Anyway, both, LilyPond and guile seem to have improved a lot.
> A: Did you do these tests on the same machine?
> Yes, it was all on the same machine.
> Though, guile-2.0.12 was the first version with a _chance_ to compile
> LilyPond, iirc
> These early attempts used patches which nowadays are superseeded by
> far better ones.
> So while the machine is the same, LilyPond has become far better to
> deal with guile-2/3.
> I think those scary values are documenting where we started and are of
> historic interest, nothing more.
> Cheers,
> Harm
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-18 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <878s6vaa7c.fsf@web.de>
[not found] ` <CAOw_e7b8-AAROs4SrB+E=fG=ORDdjgG_AbcWW2ytS1tHHmAGdA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <87v99wf1n0.fsf@web.de>
[not found] ` <CAOw_e7ZxEWWU6mxJx2cNgb4nyjXnw8ZtYCa+Lp_k=-2WkSpGCg@mail.gmail.com>
2021-03-18 8:30 ` FWD: Test reader speed of Guile 3.0.6 in Lilypond Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
2021-03-18 17:21 ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide [this message]
2021-04-11 21:32 ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
[not found] ` <f352b8c6-6a8b-4a6d-85ac-ec32cd33fc3a@t-online.de>
[not found] ` <e968a361-397e-8634-4521-ad1a4801b9de@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <cab2cdfa-6c45-c07e-8c5e-be3dde767281@t-online.de>
[not found] ` <CAGebFpKhKtQ2u6N2Le-fc1A4sp=9siHAbPkV4RCS6GOZ84YF+w@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <11662b16-c4e3-6d48-7496-6914b35e9c8e@t-online.de>
2021-03-21 8:21 ` Fwd: Re: Test reader speed of Guile 3.0.6 Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87tup8nzrz.fsf@web.de \
--to=arne_bab@web.de \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).