Speed April 2017

speed@python.org

5 participants
15 discussions

Re: [Speed] Testing a wide Unicode build of Python 2 on speed.python.org?

by Nick Coghlan

On 13 April 2017 at 02:15, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-04-12 10:52 GMT+02:00 Victor Stinner <victor.stinner(a)gmail.com>: >> I'm running benchmarks with this option. Once results will be ready, I >> will remove the old 2.7 result to replace it with the new one. > > Done. speed.python.org now uses UCS-4 on Python 2.7. Is it better now? Thanks! > Previous JSON file: > https://github.com/haypo/performance_results/raw/master/2017-03-31-cpython/… > > New JSON file: > https://github.com/haypo/performance_results/raw/master/2017-04-12-cpython/… > > I see small performance differences, but they don't seem to be related > to UTF-16 => UCS-4, but more random noise. Given that lack of divergence and the known Unicode correctness problems in narrow builds, I guess it doesn't make much sense to invest time in benchmarking both of them. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

4 years, 9 months

pybench, call_simple and call_method microbenchmarks removed

by Victor Stinner

Hi, I removed pybench, call_simple and call_method microbenchmarks from the performance project and moved them my other project: https://github.com/haypo/pymicrobench The pymicrobench project is a collection of CPython microbenchmarks used to optimize CPython and test specific micro-optimizations. IMHO the removed microbenchmarks are not representative of CPython or PyPy performances at all, and are only useful for CPython developers. I also wrote a much longer description for each benchmark in performance documentation: http://pyperformance.readthedocs.io/benchmarks.html I also started to document weird CPython results: http://pyperformance.readthedocs.io/benchmarks.html#html5lib http://pyperformance.readthedocs.io/benchmarks.html#sympy Victor

4 years, 9 months

Re: [Speed] Testing a wide Unicode build of Python 2 on speed.python.org?

by Victor Stinner

2017-04-12 10:52 GMT+02:00 Victor Stinner <victor.stinner(a)gmail.com>: > I'm running benchmarks with this option. Once results will be ready, I > will remove the old 2.7 result to replace it with the new one. Done. speed.python.org now uses UCS-4 on Python 2.7. Is it better now? Previous JSON file: https://github.com/haypo/performance_results/raw/master/2017-03-31-cpython/… New JSON file: https://github.com/haypo/performance_results/raw/master/2017-04-12-cpython/… I see small performance differences, but they don't seem to be related to UTF-16 => UCS-4, but more random noise. Comparison between the two files: $ python3 -m perf compare_to 2017-03-31-cpython/2017-04-03_16-11-2.7-23d6eb656ec2.json.gz 2017-04-12-cpython/2017-04-10_17-27-2.7-e0cba5b45a5c.json.gz --table -G --min-speed=5 +-----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Benchmark | 2017-04-03_16-11-2.7-23d6eb656ec2 | 2017-04-10_17-27-2.7-e0cba5b45a5c | +=================+===================================+===================================+ | chameleon | 23.3 ms | 25.0 ms: 1.07x slower (+7%) | +-----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | scimark_fft | 623 ms | 673 ms: 1.08x slower (+8%) | +-----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | fannkuch | 806 ms | 889 ms: 1.10x slower (+10%) | +-----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | scimark_sor | 401 ms | 443 ms: 1.11x slower (+11%) | +-----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | unpack_sequence | 138 ns | 154 ns: 1.12x slower (+12%) | +-----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | regex_v8 | 53.4 ms | 60.0 ms: 1.12x slower (+12%) | +-----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ Not significant (61): (...) Hopefully, perf stores information on the Unicode implementation in metadata. You can check metadata using: $ python3 -m perf 2017-03-31_06-53-2.7-5aa913d72317.json.gz -b 2to3|grep python_unicode - python_unicode: UTF-16 $ python3 -m perf metadata 2017-04-10_17-27-2.7-e0cba5b45a5c.json.gz -b 2to3|grep python_unicode - python_unicode: UCS-4 Victor

4 years, 9 months

Re: [Speed] Testing a wide Unicode build of Python 2 on speed.python.org?

by Victor Stinner

2017-04-12 6:58 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>: > speed.python.org has been updated to split out per-branch results for > easier cross version comparisons, but looking at the performance repo > suggests that the only 2.7 results currently reported are for the > default UCS2 builds. You're right, it's a bug, it's wasn't deliberate. I fixed "performance compile": it now pass --enable-unicode=ucs4 to configure if the branch starts with "2.". https://github.com/python/performance/commit/9af0c6e029db9d2a8475f11d5cc601… I'm running benchmarks with this option. Once results will be ready, I will remove the old 2.7 result to replace it with the new one. Note: Python 2.7 configure should use UCS4 by default on Linux, but that's a different topic ;-) Victor

4 years, 9 months

Testing a wide Unicode build of Python 2 on speed.python.org?

by Nick Coghlan

speed.python.org has been updated to split out per-branch results for easier cross version comparisons, but looking at the performance repo suggests that the only 2.7 results currently reported are for the default UCS2 builds. That isn't the way Linux distros typically ship Python: we/they specify the "--enable-unicode=ucs4" option when calling configure in order to get correct Unicode handling. Not that long ago, `pyenv` also switched to using wide builds for `manylinux1` wheel compatibility, and conda has similarly used wide builds from the start for ABI compatibility with system Python runtimes. That means the current Python 2 benchmark results may be unrepresentative for anyone using a typical Linux build of CPython: the pay-off in reduced memory use and reduced data copying from Python 3's dynamic string representation is higher relative to Python 2 wide builds than it is relative to narrow builds, and we'd expect that to affect at least the benchmarks that manipulate text data. Perhaps it would make sense to benchmark two different variants of the Python 2.7 branch, one with a wide build, and one with a narrow one? Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

4 years, 9 months

Re: [Speed] CPython benchmark status, April 2017

by Serhiy Storchaka

On 06.04.17 12:00, Victor Stinner wrote: > I succeeded to compute benchmarks on CPython master on the period > April, 2014-April,2017: we now have have a timeline over 3 years of > CPython performance! > > https://speed.python.org/timeline/ Excellent! I always wanted to see such graphics. But can you please output years on the scale? And would be nice to add thin horizontal lines for current performances of maintained Python releases.

4 years, 9 months

CPython benchmark status, April 2017

by Victor Stinner

Hi, I'm still working on analyzing past optimizations to guide future optimizations. I succeeded to identify multiple significant optimizations over the last 3 years. At least for me, some were unexpected like "Use the test suite for profile data" which made pidigts 1.16x faster. Here is a report of my work of last weeks. I succeeded to compute benchmarks on CPython master on the period April, 2014-April,2017: we now have have a timeline over 3 years of CPython performance! https://speed.python.org/timeline/ I started to take notes on significant performance changes (speedup and slowdown) of this timeline: http://pyperformance.readthedocs.io/cpython_results_2017.html To identify the change which introduced a significant performance change, I wrote a Python script running a Git bisection: compile CPython, run benchmark, repeat. https://github.com/haypo/misc/blob/master/misc/bisect_cpython_perf.py It uses a configuration file which looks like: --- [config] work_dir = ~/prog/bench_python/bisect-pickle src_dir = ~/prog/bench_python/master old_commit = 133138a284be1985ebd9ec9014f1306b9a42 new_commit = 10427f44852b6e872034061421a8890902b8f benchmark = ~/prog/bench_python/performance/performance/benchmarks/bm_pickle.py pickle benchmark_opts = --inherit-environ=PYTHONPATH -p5 -v configure_args = --- I succeeded to identify many significant optimizations (TODO: validate them on the speed-python server), examples: * PyMem_Malloc() now uses the fast pymalloc allocator * Add a C implementation of collections.OrderedDict * Use the test suite for profile data * Speedup method calls 1.2x * Added C implementation of functools.lru_cache() * Optimized ElementTree.iterparse(); it is now 2x faster perf, performance, server configuration, etc. evolve quicker than expected, so I created a Git project to keep a copy of JSON files: https://github.com/haypo/performance_results I already lost data of my first miletone (november-december 2016), but you have data from the second (december 2016-february 2017) and third (march 2016-today) milestones. I'm now discussing with PyPy to see how performance could be used to measure PyPy performance. Victor

4 years, 9 months

Re: [Speed] performance: remove "pure python" pickle benchmarks?

by Antoine Pitrou

Unfortunately, the C version of pickle lacks the extensibility of the pure Python, so the pure Python has to be used in some cases. One such example is the `cloudpickle` project, which extends pickle to support many more types, such as local functions. `cloudpickle` is often used by distributed executors to allow shipping Python code for remote execution on a cluster. See https://github.com/cloudpipe/cloudpickle/blob/master/cloudpickle/cloudpickl… Regards Antoine. On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:31:20 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 April 2017 at 21:43, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2017-04-04 12:06 GMT+02:00 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka(a)gmail.com>: > >> I consider it as a benchmark of Python interpreter itself. > > > > Don't we have enough benchmarks to test the Python interpreter? > > > > I would prefer to have more realistic use cases than "reimplement > > pickle in pure Python". > > > > "unpickle_pure_python" name can be misleading as well to users > > exploring speed.python.org data, no? > > The split benchmark likely made more sense in Python 2, when "import > pickle" gave you the pure Python version by default, and you had to do > "import cPickle as pickle" to get the accelerated version - you'd get > very different performance characteristics based on which import the > application used. > > It makes significantly less sense now that Python 3 always using the > accelerated version by default and only falls back to pure Python if > the accelerator module is missing for some reason. If anything, the > appropriate cross-version comparison would be between the pure Python > version in 2.7, and the accelerated version in 3.x, since that > reflects the performance change you get when you do "import pickle". > > However, that argument only applies to whether or not to include it in > the default benchmark set used to compare the overall performance > across versions and implementations - it's still valid as a > microbenchmark looking for major regressions in the speed of the pure > Python fallback. > > Cheers, > Nick. >

4 years, 9 months

Re: [Speed] Timeline of CPython performance April, 2014 - April, 2017

by Victor Stinner

(Crap, how did I sent an incomplete email? Sorry about that.) Hi, I hacked my "performance compile" command to force pip 7.1.2 on alpha versions of Python 3.5, which worked around the pyparsing regression (used since pip 8): https://sourceforge.net/p/pyparsing/bugs/100/ I succeeded to run benchmarks on CPython on the period April, 2014 - April, 2017, with one dot per quarter (so 4 dots per year). I started to analyze performance in depth and added notes in the performance documentation: http://pyperformance.readthedocs.io/cpython_results_2017.html (performance has now an online doc!) I wrote a tool to bisect a performance change, it tries to find the commit which made the significant performance change (slowdown or speedup): https://github.com/haypo/misc/blob/master/misc/find_git_revisions_by_date.py I now started to compute one dot per month to have a better resolution, since my tool failed to bisect the April,2016-July,2016 period. With a resolution of 1 month, I identified the "PyMem_Malloc() now uses the fast pymalloc allocator" change which has a signficant impact on unpickle_list. Victor

4 years, 9 months

Timeline of CPython performance April, 2014 - April, 2017

by Victor Stinner

Hi, I hacked my "performance compile" command to force pip 7.1.2 on alpha versions of Python 3.5, which worked around the pyparsing regression: https://sourceforge.net/p/pyparsing/bugs/100/ I succeeded to run benchmarks on CPython on the period April, 2014 - April, 2017, with one dot per quarter. I started to analyze performance in depth and added notes at:

4 years, 9 months

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Speed April 2017