From: Alexey Nogin <nogin@cs.cornell.edu>
To: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, Jason Hickey <jyh@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alexei Kopylov <kopylov@cs.cornell.edu>,
Paul Stodghill <stodghil@cs.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Upgrade from OCaml 2.01 to OCaml 2.02 made things _slower_!
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:59:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36E858F5.8FAF2CF9@CS.Cornell.EDU> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19990311104442.30284@pauillac.inria.fr>
Xavier Leroy wrote:
> In the past, I've observed speed variations by at least +/- 5% caused
> exclusively by minor variations in code placement (such as adding or
> deleting instructions that are never executed). Almost any
> modification in the code generator affects code placement. If only
> for this reason, speed variations of less than 5% are essentially
> meaningless: there's no way to attribute them to a particular
> otpimization or to good/bad luck in code placement. (Makes you very
> suspicious of those PLDI papers where they report 1% speedups...)
>
> > Also, I was doing some performance mesurements (using P6 performance
> > counter support patches for Linux by Erik Hendriks -
> > http://beowulf.gsfc.nasa.gov/software/ ) when I upgraded, so I have some
> > information (and can get more of it) on the performance counters for my
> > program under both 2.01 and 2.02. In particular, the number of requests
> > from the processor to the L1 data cache became 2%-3% bigger.
>
> That's more meaningful. The two new optimizations in 2.02 (closed
> toplevel functions and allocation coalescing) should reduce the number
> of memory accesses. Allocation coalescing might increase register
> pressure locally, causing other stuff to be spilled on the stack,
> though.
Well, in this case I should probably try to remove the allocation coalescing
and see what happens. Am I right assuming that in order to do that I have to
revert changes for versions 1.8 -> 1.9 and 1.10 -> 1.11 of the
asmcomp/selectgen.ml?
> Is there any way you could get a per-function profile of
> memory requests? (like on the Alpha with the Digital Unix tools).
I am not sure. I could probably write something gprof-like that would record
the values of the performance counters at each function call, but I am afraid
that's a lot of work. And I could probably get access to Alpha, but I do not
think I will see the same slowdown effect on Alpha as I see on x86, so the
Alpha memory access numbers would not help much.
Alexey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/nogin/
E-Mail: nogin@cs.cornell.edu (office), ayn2@cornell.edu (home)
Office: Upson 4139, tel: 1-607-255-4934
ICQ #: 24708107 (office), 24678341 (home)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-03-12 7:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
1999-03-05 10:41 ` Objective Caml 2.02 Xavier Leroy
1999-03-05 13:34 ` Camlp4 2.02 Daniel de Rauglaudre
1999-03-05 15:11 ` Objective Caml 2.02 Pierpaolo Bernardi
1999-03-05 19:59 ` doligez
1999-03-11 3:06 ` Upgrade from OCaml 2.01 to OCaml 2.02 made things _slower_! Alexey Nogin
1999-03-11 9:44 ` Xavier Leroy
1999-03-11 23:59 ` Alexey Nogin [this message]
1999-03-13 13:40 ` Anton Moscal
1999-03-24 4:20 ` Alexey Nogin
1999-03-26 11:49 ` Anton Moscal
1999-04-06 2:06 ` Alexey Nogin
1999-04-06 7:53 ` Xavier Leroy
1999-03-11 23:42 ` List.filter in Ocaml 2.02 Alexey Nogin
1999-03-12 10:10 ` Wolfram Kahl
1999-03-12 18:18 ` Alexey Nogin
1999-03-13 2:43 ` David Monniaux
1999-03-12 17:01 ` Jean-Francois Monin
1999-03-12 18:41 ` Alexey Nogin
[not found] ` <199903121011.LAA27611@lsun565.lannion.cnet.fr>
1999-03-12 18:37 ` Alexey Nogin
1999-03-15 9:06 ` Jean-Francois Monin
1999-03-06 0:27 Sort.array easily degenerates Markus Mottl
1999-03-09 10:44 ` Xavier Leroy
1999-03-09 23:03 ` doligez
1999-03-10 13:58 ` Xavier Leroy
1999-03-10 0:28 ` Markus Mottl
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=36E858F5.8FAF2CF9@CS.Cornell.EDU \
--to=nogin@cs.cornell.edu \
--cc=Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=jyh@cs.cornell.edu \
--cc=kopylov@cs.cornell.edu \
--cc=stodghil@cs.cornell.edu \
/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