From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p8GKbvGw019852
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:37:57 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvYDAJeyc07RVaE2imdsb2JhbABBmFpLjjMIFAEBAQoJDQcSBiGBUwEBAQECARICExMGARseAwELBgULKRIhAhEBBQEcGSKHVQKXcwqLQYJahSE7iG0CAwaGcgSHaYRkhn2GR4NLgm89g3E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,395,1312149600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="109385056"
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com ([209.85.161.54])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 16 Sep 2011 22:37:52 +0200
Received: by fxg9 with SMTP id 9so3895194fxg.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer
         :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=CWTmz4aVPIokJ3o1Sp3RKOmwtPrfuP6a4nCIt31tlqM=;
        b=h8+ydesG2HrPVoyVfCgLl0MoBQQ05uIPIHtaJuQdOUAA4NwWlwZpbT8yOWk68LHB+5
         yrNSYnryeY9L3CtPoA5c7vYSC+G1FygpY0lzxVJifdnj6zDRbfZEuATvIxElTYudNYfL
         2RN0rpsVdF1Syojz/1U6lU2LlzrguvIHAey+s=
Received: by 10.223.37.215 with SMTP id y23mr774488fad.12.1316205471944;
        Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lemon.local.tld (153-90-132-95.pool.ukrtel.net. [95.132.90.153])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f1sm3800753fab.19.2011.09.16.13.37.49
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:36:32 +0300
From: ygrek <ygrekheretix@gmail.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-Id: <20110916233632.cf8b09af56b83fe3e69a0798@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMB58pGrrz1BLn59i_9eAAMb=Z7D+4dKuoOuydQVfkQ8ODfUFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMB58pGrrz1BLn59i_9eAAMb=Z7D+4dKuoOuydQVfkQ8ODfUFw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.4; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Overhead of first class modules

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:08:55 -0400
Alex Rubinsteyn <alex.rubinsteyn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I ran a very simple experiment gauging the overhead of OCaml's new
> first-class modules.

This is not a valid experiment. In first two cases ocamlopt inlines
function call. Also mind that in this code ocamlopt calls the 
Local.f function directly, not through the module.

But let's correctly microbenchmark the cost of direct call vs
indirect vs message sending :)

let n = 100_000_000

let f x = x + 1
let direct () =
  let acc = ref 0 in
  for i = 0 to n do
    acc := !acc + (f 1)
  done

module type S = sig val f : int -> int end
module M = struct let f x = x + 1 end
let package = ref (module M : S)
let fstcls () =
  let acc = ref 0 in
  for i = 0 to n do
     let module Local = (val !package : S) in
     acc := !acc + (Local.f 1)
  done

let o = object method f x = x + 1 end
let obj () =
  let acc = ref 0 in
  for i = 0 to n do
     acc := !acc + o#f 1
  done

let () = 
  match Sys.argv with
  | [|_;"direct"|] -> direct ()
  | [|_;"fstcls"|] -> fstcls ()
  | [|_;"obj"|] -> obj ();
  | _ -> failwith "ORLY?"

Disable inlining :

 /opt/ocaml-3.12.1/bin/ocamlopt -inline 0 -S speed.ml -o speed

Run (Linux 3.0.0-1-686-pae i686) :

$ time ./speed direct

real	0m0.711s
user	0m0.560s
sys	0m0.012s

$ time ./speed fstcls

real	0m0.631s
user	0m0.508s
sys	0m0.000s

$ time ./speed obj

real	0m1.157s
user	0m0.840s
sys	0m0.016s

Looks like it is time to sprinkle some performance-critical code with first class modules :)

-- 
 ygrek
 http://ygrek.org.ua