From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4AAC7EC41 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:16:12 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net) identity=pra; client-ip=176.9.138.55; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=176.9.138.55; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of postmaster@mail.etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=176.9.138.55; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMEQiVCwCYo3/2dsb2JhbABEgm2/NIEIgh4BAQUMJgENAQE2Ag8LGAkWDwkDAgECAUUTBgICiAEDB6lshDMBBY8TBothg0mDJIhZjR6BF48mgnI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,646,1344204000"; d="scan'208";a="178878370" Received: from mail.etorok.net ([176.9.138.55]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2012 12:16:11 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:2a02:2f02:1022:61a3:1e6f:65ff:fe23:db0d] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2f02:1022:61a3:1e6f:65ff:fe23:db0d]) by mail.etorok.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B61F46A8 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:16:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=etorok.net; s=MAILOUT; t=1351160171; bh=ITesj4sYZ0EvnW1jUiWULkh6pkDXWgnJluevALwYMTI=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bRWyWjS8kPRHyLsCcD30Lg6zEkuiFp5BskCRb/ruxyXqYwQjgRatPMFa9lTWHwN3c qtyBJDhhCJ/9+xkADwfWuo3WSzOUAQLV9ukU+SNvGSL6NCPq9JTG1FgHa7txq7MpYz HQeX/NBX6PiZ3dx814TnLjCpGGrxFMYIBS3yqkfs= Message-ID: <5089116A.8060907@etorok.net> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:16:10 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.9) Gecko/20121014 Icedove/10.0.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <5087C517.6000000@etorok.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.6 at mail X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Behaviour of an OCaml program: any possible GC improvement? On 10/25/2012 01:06 PM, David MENTRE wrote: > Hello Edwin, > > 2012/10/24 Török Edwin : >> You can try tuning the Gc parameters: >> http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/old-311/libref/Gc.html >> >> Try increasing minor_heap_size, and major_heap_increment and see if there is any improvement. >> Also look at Gc.stat() and see how many major collections and live words you have. > > Olivier Andrieu made a similar suggestion and that helps! > > 2012/10/25 Olivier Andrieu: >> Try running your program with OCAMLRUNPARAM=s=256k ! >> (A good value is about the size of the CPU L2 cache I'd say). > > Thanks Olivier, your suggestion brings significant improvements! > > On a particular example: > * default: 2m14.142s > * s=256k: 1m32.185s > * s=1024k: 0m45.420s Would using the native code compiler increase the speed further? --Edwin