Message78660
Hello,
> You may want to check out issue1408710 in which a similar patch was
> provided, but failed to deliver the desired results.
>
> I didn't get the advertised ~15% speed-up, but only 4% on my Intel Core2
> laptop and 8% on my AMD Athlon64 X2 desktop. I attached the benchmark
> results.
Thanks. The machine I got the 15% speedup on is in 64-bit mode with gcc
4.3.2.
If you want to investigate, you can output the assembler code for
ceval.c; the command-line should be something like:
gcc -pthread -c -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -I. -IInclude -I./Include -DPy_BUILD_CORE -S -dA Python/ceval.c
and then count the number of indirect jump instructions in ceval.c:
grep -E "jmp[[:space:]]\*%" ceval.s
There should be 85 to 90 of them, roughly. If there are many less, then
the compiler has tried to optimize them by "sharing" them.
> First, you should rename opcode_targets.c to opcode_targets.h. This will
> make it explicit that the file is not compiled, but just included.
Ok.
> Also, the macro USE_THREADED_CODE should be renamed to something else;
> the word "thread" is too tightly associated with multi-threading.
> Furthermore, threaded code simply refers to code consisting only of
> function calls. Maybe, USE_COMPUTED_GOTO or USE_DIRECT_DISPATCH would be
> better.
Ok.
> Finally, why do you disable your patch when DYNAMIC_EXECUTION_PROFILE or
> LLTRACE is enabled? I tested your patch with both enabled and I didn't
> see any test failures.
Because otherwise the measurements these options are meant to do would
be meaningless.
> By the way, SUNCC also supports GCC's syntax for labels as values
I don't have a Sun machine to test, so I'll leave to someone else to
check and enable if they want to. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2008-12-31 22:41:02 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, lemburg, skip.montanaro, arigo, rhettinger, christian.heimes, alexandre.vassalotti |
2008-12-31 22:41:01 | pitrou | link | issue4753 messages |
2008-12-31 22:41:00 | pitrou | create | |
|