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: Experience with guile + Boehm GC in SND (Re: New versions of rt-compiler.scm, rt-examples.scm and rt.tex Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:50:35 +0200 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Message-ID: <87vee3k6jo.fsf@laas.fr> References: <20070603110930.M29119@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> <87zm3gq77r.fsf@laas.fr> <87d50bq2gz.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1180975851 32198 80.91.229.12 (4 Jun 2007 16:50:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:50:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bill Schottstaedt , guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Kjetil S. Matheussen" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 04 18:50:50 2007 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 1HvFlY-0004Ui-C8 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:50:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvFlX-0004dn-VM for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:50:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HvFlU-0004dD-KU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:50:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HvFlR-0004ch-Fr for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:50:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvFlR-0004cY-Ag for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:50:41 -0400 Original-Received: from laas.laas.fr ([140.93.0.15]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HvFlQ-0002Dz-NC for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:50:41 -0400 Original-Received: from messiaen.laas.fr (messiaen [IPv6:2001:660:6602:0:230:65ff:fed4:9d20]) by laas.laas.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l54GoZ5n006545; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:50:35 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: by messiaen.laas.fr (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:50:36 +0200 X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 16 Prairial 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: "Kjetil S. Matheussen" , Bill Schottstaedt , guile-devel@gnu.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -0.001 () NO_RELAYS X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS on IPv6:2001:660:6602::2 X-detected-kernel: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:6632 Archived-At: Hi, "Kjetil S. Matheussen" writes: > libgc (v6.8) was compiled with the --enable-threads=posix only. So `THREAD_LOCAL_ALLOC' was defined in your libgc build, right? > Running the benchmark program directly in guile gives no > difference. Both spent about 50 seconds running the test. "Directly in Guile" means that you just run: $ ./pre-inst-guile gcbench.scm Is that correct? > Inside snd is another matter: > > > [1] [2] [3] > Guile gc 96mb 176mb 54s. > Boehm gc 99mb 107mb 118s. > > > [1] Memory before running test reported by top. > [2] Memory after running test reported by top > [3] Time to run test in seconds. What does "inside snd" mean exactly? Is snd multi-threaded? Does it use `scm_without_guile ()' for instance (e.g., when a thread blocks for I/O)? Does the second run of `gcbench.scm' within Guile alone (no snd) show similar performance behavior in the libgc case? I.e.: $ guile-boehm --no-debug guile> (load "gcbench.scm") ;;; takes 50s. to complete guile> (load "gcbench.scm") ;;; takes 118s. to complete For libgc, there are a few environment variables that might be influential, e.g., `GC_MAXIMUM_HEAP_SIZE' (see `README.environment' from libgc). Likewise for Guile's GC, but they're undocumented AFAIK (grep for `scm_getenv_int' in the `libguile' directory). Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel