[pypy-dev] Idea for speed.pypy.org

[Maciej Fijalkowski]

Hey miquel, didn't we loose colors somehow?

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Miquel Torres <tobami at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> @Maciej: it doesn't make a lot of sense. Looking at this graph:
>> http://speed.pypy.org/comparison/?exe=2%2B35,4%2B35,1%2B172,3%2B172&ben=11,14,15&env=1&hor=false&bas=none&chart=normal+bars
>>
>> slowspitfire is much faster than the other two. Is that because it
>> performs more iterations?
>
> I think it's apples to oranges (they have different table sizes and
> different number of iterations)
>
>>
>> Also, how come pypy-c-jit is faster than cpython or psyco precisely in
>> cstringio, where performance should be dependent on cstringIO and thus
>> be more similar across interpreters?
>
> because having a list of small strings means you have a large (old)
> object referencing a lot of young objects, hence GC cost. It's not the
> case with cstringio where you have a single chunk of memory which does
> not contain GC pointers.
>
>>
>>
>> 2010/12/13 Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>:
>>> why not have only 2 versions, both with the same size table and name
>>> one spitfire_cstringio and the other spitfire_strjoin? I think it
>>> would make things clearer.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> spitfires are confusing.
>>>>
>>>> slowspitfire and spitfire use ''.join(list-of-strings) where
>>>> spitfire_cstringio uses cStringIO instead.
>>>>
>>>> spitfire and spitfire_cstringio use smaller table to render (100x100 I
>>>> think) which was the default on original benchmarks
>>>>
>>>> slowspitfire uses 1000x1000 (which is why it used to be slower than
>>>> spitfire) and was chosen by US guys to let the JIT warm up. We should
>>>> remove _slow these days.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Miquel Torres <tobami at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> sorry, I meant the opposite. To recap, according to
>>>>> http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/Benchmarks,
>>>>> spitfire: psyco
>>>>> slowspitfire: pure python
>>>>>
>>>>> in addition we have spitfire_cstringio, which uses a c module (so it
>>>>> is even faster).
>>>>>
>>>>> what is vanilla spitfire in our case?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/12/13 Miquel Torres <tobami at googlemail.com>:
>>>>>> @Carl Friedrich & exarkun: thanks, I've added those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> only spectral-norm, slowspitfire and ai to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> slowspitfire is described at the Unladen page as using psyco, but it
>>>>>> doesn't make sense in our case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/12/13  <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com>:
>>>>>>> On 08:20 am, tobami at googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks all for the input.
>>>>>>>> I've compiled a list based on your mails, the Unladen benchmarks page
>>>>>>>> (http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/Benchmarks), and the
>>>>>>>> alioth descriptions. Here is an extract of the current speed.pypy.org
>>>>>>>> admin:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> twisted_iteration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Iterates a Twisted reactor as quickly as possible without doing any work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> twisted_names
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Runs a DNS server with Twisted Names and then issues requests to it over
>>>>>>> loopback UDP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> twisted_pb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Runs a Perspective Broker server with a no-op method and invokes that method
>>>>>>> over loopback TCP with some strings, dictionaries, and tuples as arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pypy-dev at codespeak.net
>>>>> http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pypy-dev at codespeak.net
>>>> http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>
>>
>