From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39243BC0A for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:13:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l3L9Doqk018641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:13:51 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1HfBfC-0006EN-AF for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:13:50 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Slow allocations with 64bit code? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:42:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704202142.46910.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 4629D5CE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; allocations:01 markus:01 mottl:01 allocations:01 pointers:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 fsharp:01 eating:98 frog:98 heap:01 wrote:01 minor:01 caml-list:01 benchmark:02 On Friday 20 April 2007 21:31, Markus Mottl wrote: > In the considerably more complex code I'm currently working on it also > seemed to me that it's allocations (the run time) that cause the > performance difference. Are you sure it isn't just eating the minor heap 2x faster? I did quite a few benchmarks when I first got my AMD64 and found 64-bit to be faster on all but tree-based algorithms. I put that down to 64-bit pointers consuming 2x more memory (although the performance difference was much less than 2x). Doing the benchmark again (nth.opt 50 1 cfg-10k-aSi) I get: 7.438s 32-bit metaocamlopt 3.09.1 5.289s 64-bit ocamlopt 3.10.0+beta What version of OCaml are you using? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. The F#.NET Journal http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?e