Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 7:00 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
D'oh! (I should edit this all out but, well...) If we go with a one frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing *anything* with the stack. Which makes the differentiation between a return continuation and a regular continuation irrelevant, as they'd be identical.
Ok. BTW:
$ parrot tools/dev/bench_op.imc --times=1000000 'new P10, .PerlInt' Time for 1M ins: 0.314813
$ parrot tools/dev/bench_op.imc --times=1000000 'new P10, .RetContinuation' Time for 1M ins: 1.679647
Wow. Not a bad difference at all. (Yes, I know, factor of five, but there's a good chunk of memcopying going on there too :)
I estimate a special Fat Continuation PMC at around 1 sec per Meg.
So avoiding the creation of (Ret)?Continuations at all is still a very valuable goal IMHO.
Sure, it's a great goal. I'm just not sure it's a feasable one. The other constraints on the system make it dodgy to go reuse these things. Lets first see where a separate continuation pool takes us and we can go from there.
>>What about other sub PMCs: Sub, Closure, Coroutine, Exception_Handler?
Dunno if they're allocated often enough to warrant any extra work. Maybe exception handlers.
Exception handlers are derived from Continuations. All these share some code - not much though.
Let's worry about them later. For now, we'll concentrate on continuations, and look into the rest after that.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
