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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/4B757A48-F10F-43F3-BECC-9E40A7416448%40mbtype.com.
