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=2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F41BBAF for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:11:52 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am4DAKpsvErRVYT0mWdsb2JhbACDAY5JiHY/AQEBAQEICwoHE6pmgTSPegEDAgWEGQU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,451,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="36832273" Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.244]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2009 16:11:51 +0200 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d14so1055031and.3 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:11:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JGA5hr0Qapx+812GNL3JFAjtBFlXlePwT3uW0jOIgN0=; b=cObyxQ9diNPguRKDwL2vXlN5hZMIM3sFPw307yI5O8uesj1gcScgrHRCyt0pVoklWU psTvIa0n2hjtaMevu7ZfmTofneQO/4j2avT7SjM6sWw47BdnFBhxq0oZYvwhK+z3Fd0V zT6zTeIZePE9wYFRqW+wf/pNagF6z2HdGpPMI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=XLsw2bqDOUqiP5mJjcMhxXzbGbuHacSM5H6h49UoYQWUrP2xbPVgFD0hk52oAuMMF8 wGaYWpszt/Xs9xlSNwP1Ud0iPX3NGi/JOzenj9zYNIxgGf9TktMzjsow6x4x1sKfzg6h RBB+eVftyaR5uw/c72ftYYQlDUudLgL4Cy/Gw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.154.5 with SMTP id g5mr200879ano.178.1253887910724; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:11:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200909250028.57186.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <613980.13877.qm@web111508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4d1b2df20909240738g1ba80204ra8cd138ef5c58956@mail.gmail.com> <200909250028.57186.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:11:50 +0200 Message-ID: <4d1b2df20909250711u87c549bv9b638f73f06ea5d1@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures From: Philippe Wang To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 2009:98 2009:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 structures:02 slower:02 slower:02 benchmark:04 fix:05 On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Thursday 24 September 2009 15:38:06 Philippe Wang wrote: >> Very few programs that are not written with multicore in mind would >> not be penalized. >> I mean our GC is much much dumber than INRIA OCaml's one. >> Our goal was to show it was possible to have good performance with >> multicores for OCaml. >> Maybe someday we'll find some time to optimize the GC, but it's likely >> not very soon. > > Just to quantify this with a data point: the fastest (serial) version of my > ray tracer benchmark is 10x slower with the new GC. However, this is > anomalous with respect to complexity and the relative performance is much > better for simpler renderings. For example, the new GC is only 1.7x slower > with n=6 instead of n=9. I just put a version with a bug fix on some structures allocation (20090925). I hope it removes this anomaly. -- Philippe Wang mail@philippewang.info