On 24/09/2009 04:57, Jason Dagit wrote:
I ran this more with normal builds and just the GC statistics. Here is
what we see:
unmodified darcs:
469 MB total memory in use (3 MB lost due to fragmentation)
Total time 26.51s ( 29.76s elapsed)
Productivity 85.6% of total user, 76.2% of total elapsed
469 MB total memory in use (3 MB lost due to fragmentation)
Total time 26.59s ( 32.47s elapsed)
Productivity 85.6% of total user, 70.1% of total elapsed
469 MB total memory in use (3 MB lost due to fragmentation)
Total time 26.54s ( 29.95s elapsed)
Productivity 85.5% of total user, 75.8% of total elapsed
With my patch applied:
554 MB total memory in use (4 MB lost due to fragmentation)
Total time 23.30s ( 31.56s elapsed)
Productivity 83.1% of total user, 61.3% of total elapsed
554 MB total memory in use (4 MB lost due to fragmentation)
Total time 22.85s ( 26.33s elapsed)
Productivity 82.9% of total user, 71.9% of total elapsed
554 MB total memory in use (4 MB lost due to fragmentation)
Total time 22.88s ( 26.38s elapsed)
Productivity 82.8% of total user, 71.8% of total elapsed
Now that the profiler is disabled the productivity with my changes is
less, the run-time is maybe improved by 2-3 seconds, and the memory
usage has increased by almost 100 megs. I can only assume that the
profiling is interfering with my results a fair bit.
The profile graphs in your previous message showed a residency of around
~30M before your patch, and ~6M after your patch. Which seems like a
worthwhile saving. I presume those graphs were from a different test
case? If not, then something very strange is going on. If they are
from a different test case, then do the numbers stand up when using the
non-profiled darcs?
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
