On 27/09/2009 19:10, Jason Dagit wrote:


On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com
<mailto:marlo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    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?


Simon,

I just tried my test case with retainer profiling and it consistently
segfaults.

My GHC is 6.10.4 on OSX 10.5.8.  I'll make a backup on my current source
code, but I'm not sure how to make that available to you.  Is there
anything more info I could send you to help you figure out why it
segfaults for me?  I know I've done retainer profiling on this machine
on darcs with this ghc in the past so I think it's related to my current
build or configuration.

If you could collect all the information you have and put it in a ticket here: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/newticket?type=bug that would be great. Retainer profiling is an old and crufty piece of code originally written by an intern, so it does break from time to time.

Cheers,
        Simon

_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users

Reply via email to