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 p7OJa6NS014184
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:36:06 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap8BAFZRVU7RVaE2kGdsb2JhbABCFphVjw0IFAEBAQEJCQ0HFAQhgUABAQEBAQEBEgImBgEBOAQLCzQSNAEFARw7h08CApx0Co8OAY5OBYVqX595PINl
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,277,1312149600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="106523319"
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com ([209.85.161.54])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 24 Aug 2011 21:36:00 +0200
Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so2323674fxe.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        bh=UTTySJO06Vm9DbIAia24IpT//4V5NnM5FsCRMe7RdIA=;
        b=xaPk1bdwJFu4G/oKafJ3U7KvZEt0r4G4jT0nb5ZGTM7fADDlqUOduxgj5wwLFu8/DF
         IWSgmJbqb/RStWIaFghCSF9kJo2yGlPCqQ8IPrjZU/aC8wlA0gsoMT8+uuxhtdj9/SpO
         MVaxn0rZc9TVwk5qozv8PQuoULJw49YTFUvTQ=
Received: by 10.223.1.14 with SMTP id 14mr2182616fad.47.1314214560452;
        Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from coruscant.kosmos.all (ip-95-223-170-32.unitymediagroup.de [95.223.170.32])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c7sm1095288fac.36.2011.08.24.12.35.57
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
From: Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPFanBGk8gCmVKFVh4bPZyy8LjoTf9dzVWZsNgrEut=POtM=Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:35:56 +0200
Message-Id: <4EF51F29-D437-4F6F-9C91-DBEA3D4C3EB8@googlemail.com>
References: <93199F3B-E9CF-4D93-9B2B-BAAB03F4FC08@googlemail.com> <CAPFanBGk8gCmVKFVh4bPZyy8LjoTf9dzVWZsNgrEut=POtM=Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p7OJa6NS014184
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Linear Scan Register Allocator for ocamlopt/ocamlnat


On Aug 1, 2011, at 17:04 , Gabriel Scherer wrote:

> Do you have more precise measurements on

Also posting Marcell's timing results here for reference (taken from bug 5324).

> - the performance cost of this new allocator in the generated code? I
> suppose the results may vary between different architectures (eg. x86
> is probably more sensitive to good allocation decisions than x86_64).

- http://ps.informatik.uni-siegen.de/~meurer/tmp/compiletime_timings.pdf contains a comparison of the ocamlopt invocations.
- http://ps.informatik.uni-siegen.de/~meurer/tmp/runtime_timings.pdf contains comparison of the generated code.

As can be seen from the results, amd64 is more sensitive to register allocator changes than i386. Not really surprising to me. Would be interesting to see how this affects PPC/Sparc/Mips, but we don't have appropriate hardware available right now. Anyone with appropriate hardware and some spare time? :-)

Benedikt