On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 at 11:10 Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pydev(a)gmail.com>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 at 07:37 Matti Picus <matti.picus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> No responses, maybe I asked the wrong question.
> > I think the people who have traditionally maintained speed.python.org
> > just not available to answer the question, not that it was the wrong
> > question.
> This. I think at this point we might be better served to just get
> Matti access to the relevant machines.
No objections from me.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 at 07:37 Matti Picus <matti.picus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> No responses, maybe I asked the wrong question.
> I think the people who have traditionally maintained speed.python.org are
> just not available to answer the question, not that it was the wrong
This. I think at this point we might be better served to just get
Matti access to the relevant machines.
On 14/02/18 20:18, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 14 February 2018 at 07:52, Mark Shannon <mark(a)hotpy.org> wrote:
>> On 13/02/18 14:27, Matti Picus wrote:
>>> I have begun to dive into the performance/perf code. My goal is to get
>>> pypy benchmarks running on http://speed.python.org. Since PyPy has a JIT,
>>> the benchmark runs must have a warmup stage.
>> The other interpreters don't get an arbitrary chunk of time for free, so
>> neither should PyPy. Warmup in an inherent cost of dynamic optimisers. The
>> benefits should outweigh the costs, but the costs shouldn't be ignored.
> For speed.python.org purposes, that would likely be most usefully
> reported as separate "PyPy (cold)" and "PyPy (warm)" results (where
> the former runs under the same conditions as CPython, while the latter
> is given the benefit of warming up the JIT first).
> Only reporting the former would miss the point of PyPy's main use case
> (i.e. long lived processes), while only reporting the latter would
> miss one of the main answers to "Why hasn't everyone already switched
> to PyPy for all their Python needs?" (i.e. when the app doesn't run
> long enough to pay back the increased start-up overhead).
So would it be reasonable as a first step to get the PyPy runner(s) into
operation by modifying the nightly runs to download from the latest
nightly builds , ?
We can deal with reporting cold/warm statistics later. As people have
said, they are really two orthogonal issues.
for python 2.7
for python 3.5 (latest released pypy3 version, python 3.6 is still alpha)