[armedbear-devel] Significant increase in build time
Erik Huelsmann
ehuels at gmail.com
Sun Nov 14 11:22:09 UTC 2010
Hi Blake, others,
Running our cl-bench tests on Windows finally succeeded (but they did
need some tweaking).
Below the results. The reference is the revision before the merge, the
comparison (0.24) is a trunk revision of the last days; it's not
exactly the comparison you were talking about, but it does seem like
an indication.
Here are the results:
Armed Bear Common Lisp 0.23.0-dev
Java 1.6.0_20 Sun Microsystems Inc.
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM
Low-level initialization completed in 0.289 seconds.
Startup completed in 3.552 seconds.
Benchmark Reference Armed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM-PERMUTATIONS [ 2.31] 1.02
BOYER [ 3.66] 0.95
BROWSE [ 3.19] 0.19
DDERIV [ 0.99] 1.01
DERIV [ 0.71] 1.02
DESTRUCTIVE [ 1.03] 0.99
DIV2-TEST-1 [ 0.51] 1.03
DIV2-TEST-2 [ 2.02] 0.99
FFT [ 0.42] 1.12
FRPOLY/FIXNUM [ 1.56] 1.03
FRPOLY/BIGNUM [ 0.73] 1.02
FRPOLY/FLOAT [ 1.53] 1.02
PUZZLE [ 4.67] 1.02
TAK [ 7.70] 0.98
CTAK [ 20.68] 1.01
TRTAK [ 7.70] 1.0
TAKL [ 5.94] 0.97
STAK [ 10.92] 0.98
FPRINT/UGLY [ 2.69] 1.18
FPRINT/PRETTY [ 33.24] 1.01
TRAVERSE [ 20.80] 1.05
TRIANGLE [ 12.32] 1.06
RICHARDS [ 23.68] 1.04
FACTORIAL [ 0.42] 1.0
FIB [ 0.89] 1.0
FIB-RATIO [ 0.23] 1.12
ACKERMANN [ 31.31] 0.93
MANDELBROT/COMPLEX [ 0.57] 1.48
MANDELBROT/DFLOAT [ 0.07] 1.41
MRG32K3A [ 1.90] 1.11
CRC40 [ 19.55] 1.05
BIGNUM/ELEM-100-1000 [ 2.78] 1.14
BIGNUM/ELEM-1000-100 [ 0.77] 1.13
BIGNUM/ELEM-10000-1 [ 1.05] 1.21
BIGNUM/PARI-100-10 [ 0.05] 0.98
BIGNUM/PARI-200-5 [ 0.15] 0.99
PI-DECIMAL/SMALL [ 40.27] 1.07
PI-DECIMAL/BIG [ 87.37] 1.06
PI-ATAN [ 1.58] 1.04
PI-RATIOS [ 4.41] 1.04
HASH-STRINGS [ 1.72] 1.08
HASH-INTEGERS [ 1.38] 1.26
SLURP-LINES [ 0.00] 0.67
BOEHM-GC [ 9.29] 1.16
DEFLATE-FILE [ 12.08] 1.02
1D-ARRAYS [ 2.66] 1.17
2D-ARRAYS [ 13.33] 1.07
3D-ARRAYS [ 36.69] 1.06
BITVECTORS [ 3.49] 1.01
BENCH-STRINGS [ 21.73] 0.97
fill-strings/adjustable [ 11.19] 1.07
STRING-CONCAT [ 143.53] 0.95
SEARCH-SEQUENCE [ 2.28] 1.0
CLOS/defclass [ 1.0] 1.31
CLOS/defmethod [ 0.87] 1.37
CLOS/instantiate [ 42.83] 1.02
CLOS/simple-instantiate [ 143.36] 1.06
CLOS/methodcalls [ 8.87] 1.01
CLOS/method+after [ 5.36] 1.05
CLOS/complex-methods [ 3.55] 1.19
EQL-SPECIALIZED-FIB [ 1.40] 0.90
Reference time in first column is in seconds; other columns are relative
Reference implementation: Armed Bear Common Lisp 0.23.0-dev
Impl Armed: Armed Bear Common Lisp 0.24.0-dev
=== Test machine ===
Machine-type: X86
Machine-version: NIL
Bye,
Erik.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Blake,
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Blake McBride <blake at mcbride.name> wrote:
>> I'd really like to run a bench mark before and after the commit in
>> question. I spent a short time trying to run the benchmarks a while
>> back but was unsuccessful getting it to run. Can you help me with
>> this?
>
> Sure. What's your platform? If it's Linux/unix, getting the tests to
> run is relatively easy: make sure you have "make" and follow the
> instructions in the README file.
>
> When you have Windows, it's a bit harder. This is what I do to run the
> tests on my windows machine:
>
> <in the cl-bench root directory>
> <open support.lisp>
> <search #+win32, replace with #+(or win32 windows)>
> <search #-win32, replace with #-(or win32 windows)>
> <save, close>
> cd files
> copy *.lisp *.olisp
> cd ..
> abcl
> :ld do-compilation-script
> :exit
> abcl
> :ld do-execute-script
>
>
> I hope the above works for you!
>
> Bye,
>
>
> Erik.
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Blake
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Blake McBride <blake at mcbride.name> wrote:
>>> That's helpful. Thanks. So now we need to do benchmark / runtime tests.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Blake
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Blake,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before going to bed, I did a quick test - as discussed over GMail chat
>>>> - to see how much they differ in compilation times on other software.
>>>>
>>>> timing new code, Maxima compilation: 223.416s, loading: 25.8
>>>> timing old code, Maxima compilation: 204.063s, loading: 29.174
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea of the variation of the Maxima compilation times; it
>>>> looks like the new code is 10% slower at compiling, but 20% more
>>>> efficient at loading. However, these were single runs, so my
>>>> conclusions may be way off, depending on the variations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>>
>>>> Erik.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Blake McBride <blake at mcbride.name> wrote:
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hadn't built ABCL in a little while so I checked out the latest
>>>>> version today and built it. It seemed to be significantly slower than
>>>>> before so I decided to investigate. This is what I found.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past I could build ABCL in 2:43. It now takes me 4:40. That
>>>>> (IMO) represents a pretty significant change in build time. I did a
>>>>> binary search and discovered that all of the change occurred at
>>>>> revision 12918 - Generic Class File Branch Merge.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, I could't care less about the build time unless it is
>>>>> indicative of a problem that could rear its head in my application.
>>>>> Where is that time being spent? Is there a change in runtime?
>>>>> Loading? Compiling?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be real interested in this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Blake McBride
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> armedbear-devel mailing list
>>>>> armedbear-devel at common-lisp.net
>>>>> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the armedbear-devel
mailing list