What can you say about places & parallelism under CS vs. BC? This is one area that I find CS to reliably underperform BC (by about a factor of 2). Place creation seems slower under CS. More interestingly however, the utilization of multiple cores seems inefficient. For instance, when I run a full parallel Pollen render under BC, my cores jump to 90-100% and stay there. Fans speed up, struggling to eject the heat of this awesome computation. Whereas under CS, the cores saunter along in a more leisurely range of about 40-50% (which would itself account for the 2x perf difference).
> On Feb 23, 2020, at 4:58 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > >> 2) With Racket BC, I've generally found that the JIT optimizes my code >> better >> than I do. So I write the simplest code and ignore the details. Is that less >> true with CS? Should I be thinking more about manual tuning? > > You should treat Racket BC and CS the same in this way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/4B757A48-F10F-43F3-BECC-9E40A7416448%40mbtype.com.
