On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:25:58PM -0800, Jeff Clites wrote:
> allocate chunks of memory with arbitrary power-of-2 alignment. So all
> the platforms being tested on the tinders probably have this. (Of
> course, you can manually set ARENA_DOD_FLAGS to false in the source,
> for testing.)
My tin
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How come most tinderboxes kept going without failing? What's making the
> choice on the value of ARENA_DOD_FLAGS ?
ARENA_DOD_FLAGS is turned on by default. If there is no memalign or such
library function (which it depends on), this define is disabled.
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It gets set in include/parrot/pobj.h, and is basically set to true if
> your platform has some flavor of memalign(), which allows you to
> allocate chunks of memory with arbitrary power-of-2 alignment. So all
> the platforms being tested on the tinders prob
On Jan 10, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:39:51PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
src/dod.c: In function `clear_live_bits':
src/dod.c:755: `cur_arena' undeclared (first use in this function)
The appended patch cures it
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:39:51PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > src/dod.c: In function `clear_live_bits':
> > src/dod.c:755: `cur_arena' undeclared (first use in this function)
>
> > The appended patch cures it (and all tests pass) but I'm not su
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> src/dod.c: In function `clear_live_bits':
> src/dod.c:755: `cur_arena' undeclared (first use in this function)
> The appended patch cures it (and all tests pass) but I'm not sure if it
> is correct.
Ah yep, thanks. I didn't test the patch with ARENA_DO
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:28:38PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Leopold Toetsch writes:
> >> It seems, that in that case we still need to walk the PMC arenas and
> >> reset all live bits. OTOH when ARENA_DOD_FLAGS is on, this isn't too
> >> expensive be
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch writes:
>> It seems, that in that case we still need to walk the PMC arenas and
>> reset all live bits. OTOH when ARENA_DOD_FLAGS is on, this isn't too
>> expensive because it can be done my masking a full word worth of 8 PMCs
>> at once. So
Leopold Toetsch writes:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... I'm not
> > against somebody else maintaining the patch in the meantime :-)
>
> I went again through the patch and the original one from Sept, 5th. But
> it seems that one thing is missing in both:
>
> *If* all PMCs which n
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... I'm not
> against somebody else maintaining the patch in the meantime :-)
I went again through the patch and the original one from Sept, 5th. But
it seems that one thing is missing in both:
*If* all PMCs which needs_early_DOD are seen live, the DOD ru
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch writes:
>> Moving the needs_early_DOD_FLAG out of the arena_flags is suboptimal
>> (and probably the reason for the 5% slowdown for the eager case). Now the
>> relevant flags is the high_priority_DOD_FLAG. If I get the patch right,
>> it gets
Leopold Toetsch writes:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After many months of lying dormant, I figured I'd get my act together
> > and adapt this patch to the few recent modifications. And this time,
> > I'm posting a benchmark!
>
> Wow, thanks.
>
> Some comments:
>
> > -b_PObj_
Jeff Clites writes:
> On Jan 5, 2004, at 5:47 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >After many months of lying dormant, I figured I'd get my act together
> >and adapt this patch to the few recent modifications. And this time,
> >I'm posting a benchmark!
> >
> >My results get about 5% slowdown in the eager
On Jan 5, 2004, at 5:47 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
After many months of lying dormant, I figured I'd get my act together
and adapt this patch to the few recent modifications. And this time,
I'm posting a benchmark!
My results get about 5% slowdown in the eager case, and the usual
10,000% speedup in t
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One more remark:
>
> +if (PObj_needs_early_DOD_TEST(obj))
> +++interpreter->num_early_PMCs_seen;
When is this counter reset?
leo
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After many months of lying dormant, I figured I'd get my act together
> and adapt this patch to the few recent modifications. And this time,
> I'm posting a benchmark!
Wow, thanks.
Some comments:
> -b_PObj_needs_early_DOD_FLAG = 1 << 27,
> +/* tr
After many months of lying dormant, I figured I'd get my act together
and adapt this patch to the few recent modifications. And this time,
I'm posting a benchmark!
My results get about 5% slowdown in the eager case, and the usual
10,000% speedup in the lazy case.
Luke
First, the benchmark (exam
17 matches
Mail list logo
