This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Just a reminder of serious open 3.3 PRs
> From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
>
> Op ma 07-04-2003, om 02:21 schreef Kaveh R. Ghazi:
> > I've included the top entries in timing runs for 3.2, and for 3.3 with
> > various simulated memory sizes at -O0 and -O3 with CVS from 20030406.
>
> > 3.3 (RAM 1Gb --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072)
> > garbage collection <doesn't appear!>
>
> It had better not appear. You have a heap as big as the total memory
> many people have in their computer. It probably never collects at all :-)
>
> ---- 8< ----
> > These are at -O3:
> >
> > 3.2 (Effectively RAM 32Mb)
> > garbage collection : 41.60 (19%) usr 0.04 ( 1%) sys 41.75 (18%) wall
> > parser : 33.38 (15%) usr 2.78 (42%) sys 36.25 (16%) wall
> > expand : 20.57 ( 9%) usr 0.08 ( 1%) sys 21.25 ( 9%) wall
> > CSE : 28.62 (13%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 30.25 (13%) wall
> > global CSE : 4.51 ( 2%) usr 0.04 ( 1%) sys 4.00 ( 2%) wall
> > rename registers : 14.22 ( 6%) usr 0.03 ( 0%) sys 16.50 ( 7%) wall
> > TOTAL : 222.02 6.61 229.25
> >
> ---- 8< ----
> > 3.3 (RAM 1Gb --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072)
> > garbage collection : 4.38 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 4.50 ( 2%) wall
> > parser : 28.58 (13%) usr 7.14 (30%) sys 33.50 (13%) wall
> > name lookup : 10.47 ( 5%) usr 11.11 (46%) sys 23.00 ( 9%) wall
> > expand : 14.45 ( 6%) usr 0.89 ( 4%) sys 14.00 ( 6%) wall
> > CSE : 35.26 (16%) usr 0.16 ( 1%) sys 31.25 (12%) wall
> > global CSE : 12.60 ( 6%) usr 0.14 ( 1%) sys 14.25 ( 6%) wall
> > rename registers : 16.74 ( 7%) usr 0.09 ( 0%) sys 16.50 ( 7%) wall
> > TOTAL : 225.97 24.19 251.00
>
> So with the GC params set to the defaults, 3.3 needs 1 friggin' GB to be
> close to but still slower than 3.2 with only 32MB!? That looks really
> sad...
Agreed, my point was to illustrate that blaming GC was not looking in
the right spot. We certainly have room for improvement in other areas.
>
> Were these timings you did avarages or did you do one run for each?
One each, it would have been too hard to do averages given the number
of fields and columns. However I did run some of the tests multiple
times and they didn't vary by more than 1-3 seconds in the "TOTAL"
column so I belive the numbers are fairly consistent.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu