[IronPython] pystone results for 1.0 vs 2.0a1 on variousruntimes

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello Dino,

> In the Vista CLR (and this is in the Orcas CLR as well) there's an
> improvement to the performance of dispatching to a delegate closed
> over a parameter.  We tend to be pushing on delegates more and more
> these days for things like the dynamic site infrastructure so this
> shows up there.

Could you explain a bit more what this optimization does?  It might be
interesting to have this implemented in the Mono runtime as well.

Miguel.

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com [mailto:users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Sanghyeon Seo
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:42 AM
> To: Discussion of IronPython
> Subject: [IronPython] pystone results for 1.0 vs 2.0a1 on various runtimes
> 
> I believe some of you may be interested in these results.
> 
> In the video of DLR talk at MIX07, "the one and only powerpoint slide
> that actually contains content" shows pystone numbers for various
> versions of CPython and IronPython. (Seek to 37:50.)
> 
> IronPython 1.0: 90K
> IronPython 2.0a1: 101K
> 
> I assume these numbers are on Microsoft .NET included in Windows
> Vista. (Is it Orcas instead? Maybe that's why this differs from WinFX
> result below?)
> 
> It shows 12% gain in pystone numbers. (I also note that IronPython 1.0
> and 1.1 are virtually identical in terms of performance.)
> 
> However, I can't reproduce this performance gain on Mono. The best of
> 3 results on my laptop gives 32% loss:
> 
> IronPython 1.0: 31K
> IronPython 2.0a1: 21K
> 
> Confused, I ran pystone on Windows XP PC to verify. Again, the results
> didn't match the slide (21% loss):
> 
> IronPython 1.1: 68K
> IronPython 2.0a1: 54K
> 
> I messaged M. David Peterson about the issue, and he gave me the
> results on Windows Longhorn. Thanks a lot for this information. This
> is 6% gain, which is much more consistent with the slide:
> 
> IronPython 1.1: 109K
> IronPython 2.0a1: 116K
> 
> This seems to suggest that although IronPython 2.0 received
> performance improvements compared to IronPython 1.0 and 1.1, these
> improvements are quite dependent on underlying CLR runtime. Can
> someone from IronPython team explain why this is so?
> 
> Following is a table summarizing effects of CLR runtime on relative
> performance of IronPython 1.0/1.1 and 2.0.
> 
> Mono 1.2.4+: -32%
> Whidbey: -21%
> WinFX: +6%
> MIX07 (Orcas?): +12%
> 
> --
> Seo Sanghyeon
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at lists.ironpython.com
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at lists.ironpython.com
> http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com