From: "Nathaniel Gray" <n8gray@gmail.com>
To: "Edgar Friendly" <thelema314@gmail.com>
Cc: "Caml List" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Benchmarking different dispatch types
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:33:00 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aee06c9e0701181433u4c7d7009k60ef09292e41fe21@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45AED8C8.3080808@gmail.com>
On 1/17/07, Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> well, running only 40,000 iterations is way too low because timing
> errors are going to get in the way of an accurate answer.
I forgot to mention that I also tried 400,000 and 4,000,000. 400K
produced similar results to 40K, while 4M produced some strange
results that didn't make sense.
> On my
> computer, I bumped the iterations up to max_int, and still the function
> call was still taking less than one CPU second of time (which I guess is
> the requirement for the warning to disappear).
>
> Here's my numbers from an Athlon XP-M 2000+ (1.53GHz), compiled with
> ocaml 3.09.3, cmd. line:
> $ ocamlfind ocamlopt -package "benchmark" -inline 0 unix.cmxa
> benchmark.cmxa dispatch.ml
>
>
> Latencies for 1073741823 iterations of function, method, closure, obj.
> closure:
> function: 0 WALL (-0.02 usr + -0.00 sys = -0.02 CPU)
> (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
> method: 15 WALL (11.34 usr + 0.49 sys = 11.83 CPU) @ 90764313.02/s
> (n=1073741823)
> closure: 4 WALL ( 2.60 usr + -0.60 sys = 2.00 CPU) @ 536870911.50/s
> (n=1073741823)
> obj. closure: 8 WALL ( 4.31 usr + 0.03 sys = 4.34 CPU) @
> 247405950.00/s (n=1073741823)
> Rate function method obj. closure
> closure
> function -5.36871e+10/s -- -59250% -21800%
> -10100%
> method 90764313/s -100% -- -63%
> -83%
> obj. closure 247405950/s -100% 173% --
> -54%
> closure 536870911/s -101% 491% 117%
> --
>
> Either function calls are just that stupidly efficient, or there's some
> optimization still going on. I'm guessing the second.
These results are clearly garbage, since the rate of function calls is
negative. Or perhaps there's some time-travel going on...
Cheers,
-n8
--
>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-18 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-18 1:12 Nathaniel Gray
2007-01-18 2:17 ` [Caml-list] " Edgar Friendly
2007-01-18 3:03 ` Jonathan Roewen
2007-01-18 23:57 ` Nathaniel Gray
2007-01-18 15:52 ` Remi Vanicat
2007-01-18 22:33 ` Nathaniel Gray [this message]
2007-01-19 0:03 ` Robert Roessler
2007-01-31 17:03 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2007-01-18 16:56 ` William D. Neumann
2007-01-19 0:50 ` Jacques Garrigue
2007-01-19 8:30 ` Nathaniel Gray
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aee06c9e0701181433u4c7d7009k60ef09292e41fe21@mail.gmail.com \
--to=n8gray@gmail.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=thelema314@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).