[CakeML-dev] [CakeML-Dev] Bootstrap evaluation timings
Ramana Kumar
Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk
Tue Dec 6 07:19:55 UTC 2016
https://cakeml.org/bootstrap-timing.txt now shows realtime in addition
to cpu time, so we can see the effect of parallelism.
In addition, it seems like making compute_labels and section_labels
tail recursive did not make them faster (in fact maybe made them
slower) (compare the tail-rec commit, 59ff22c, with the previous one).
However, I suspect this is because the custom conversion for running
compute_labels is not as smart as it could be. I might try to speed it
up. Are there any tricks I should know about apart from trying to
parallelise things and to avoid too large terms (by making
abbreviating constants)? Maybe putting the otherwise tail-recursive
call behind a THENC is a bad idea?
On 28 November 2016 at 10:09, Ramana Kumar <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> I think it's about 10 hours for everything up to the bootstrap evaluation
> (including the translation). So we're looking at slightly over a day for the
> full regression. However, these numbers are somewhat inflated because the
> (par) parts are something like sums of times across 8 threads.
>
> On 28 November 2016 at 10:06, Yong Kiam <tanyongkiam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In case anyone is curious, that's about 17.4 hours in total (might be
>> wrong, I used some quick vim magic to get that number)
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ramana Kumar <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Latest timings with Yong Kiam's fixes look good.
>>> https://cakeml.org/bootstrap-timing.txt.
>>> The slowest evaluations are in encoding, computing labels (they happen
>>> twice at >1 hour each), and checking jumps (>5 hours).
>>> Have a look at the times and see if it looks like anything could be sped
>>> up.
>>>
>>> On 27 November 2016 at 11:09, Yong Kiam <tanyongkiam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's a summary of the issue:
>>>>
>>>> The latest change to put Equal into data_to_word currently produces
>>>> unreachable code (GiveUp).
>>>>
>>>> These unreachable bits of code goes through wordLang, but the allocator
>>>> and SSA don't touch it because the code refers to variables that are
>>>> "uninitialized". This ended up producing massive stack frames in the
>>>> bootstrap (upwards of 1000 variables on stack) going into word_to_stack
>>>> because the variables were just passed in as is.
>>>>
>>>> My latest commit fixes this in wordLang, and hopefully the time for
>>>> word_to_stack goes back down to something more reasonable (untested).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Ramana Kumar
>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like exp_cut did make a difference. Latest timings here:
>>>>> https://cakeml.org/bootstrap-timing.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the asm_ok check removal has made a difference: sec_ok is only
>>>>> ~6hours (previously it has always been >10 and sometimes >18), as originally
>>>>> hoped.
>>>>>
>>>>> The longest thing in the latest timings is word_to_stack (8hrs), but as
>>>>> we've been discussing separately, there are fixes to that coming soon...
>>>>>
>>>>> Other things to consider: do any passes look like they're taking
>>>>> unexpectedly long, or there might be relatively easy tweaks to speed them
>>>>> up? Could other tweaks to the configuration parameters improve the speed?
>>>>> (e.g., set inline even lower)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 November 2016 at 11:45, Yong Kiam <tanyongkiam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I went through the commit history on github, and here is a list of
>>>>>> changes since 1a939d3 that looked like they might affect something (based on
>>>>>> the title):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 55d5fc0: Update unverified register allocator
>>>>>> 63cbd66: Removed asm_ok
>>>>>> 98188ad: Changed default bvl_to_bvi configurations
>>>>>> 66ddd3d: exh_reorder
>>>>>> 8c2f5ae: load_opt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also found that the eval/x64 directory could probably be deleted
>>>>>> (the default configs for every backend is also defined in
>>>>>> targets/configTheory). The only difference in the x64_compiler_config
>>>>>> defined there and the one in configTheory is pad_bits for data_to_word
>>>>>> though. I think it is only there because otherwise all the backends have to
>>>>>> be built to eval anything using the x64 configuration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also reduced the value for exp_cut locally on the nqueens benchmark,
>>>>>> but I didn't any meaningful difference in compile times (the benchmark is
>>>>>> probably too small though).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Preliminary results with inline_size_limit set back down to 3
>>>>>>> indicate that word_to_stack is still taking longer than before, specifically
>>>>>>> 3.5 hours as opposed to the 1.5 hours of two months ago. Could the exp_cut
>>>>>>> parameter also be relevant?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 November 2016 at 16:30, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some updated times (now included program sizes) are up
>>>>>>>> (https://cakeml.org/bootstrap-timing.txt). Things are still surprisingly
>>>>>>>> slow (word_to_stack, sec_ok) - guess is still that it's because of inline
>>>>>>>> limit, so the next thing to try is changing the inline limit..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is conf_ok required if I change the inline_limit just for the
>>>>>>>> bootstrap? Isn't it easy to show that conf_ok isn't affected by that config
>>>>>>>> field?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18 November 2016 at 10:39, Yong Kiam <tanyongkiam at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It shouldn't be very hard... I just thought it wouldn't be high
>>>>>>>>> priority since the remaining ones are only in LabAsms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Changing the config there seems right. You won't get a conf_ok
>>>>>>>>> proof about it though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've seen the word_to_stack slowdown twice (although it only shows
>>>>>>>>>> up in the timings document once - I didn't record the other data).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think removing more asm_ok is always a good idea, but I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> sure how much priority it should be given - how hard is it to remove more?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess after the current run finishes I could try changing the
>>>>>>>>>> inline limit (I would do this by using a different config here
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/blob/master/compiler/bootstrap/evaluation/to_lab_x64BootstrapScript.sml#L83
>>>>>>>>>> - does that seem right?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 18 November 2016 at 09:36, Magnus Myreen
>>>>>>>>>> <magnus.myreen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the inline_size_limit of 10 is potentially risky. I
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>> the bootstrap is run with a lower setting, e.g. 2 or 3. -- Magnus
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 November 2016 at 09:26, Yong Kiam <tanyongkiam at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > Argh, that's a shame. Would moving more of asm_ok up help?
>>>>>>>>>>> > There are still
>>>>>>>>>>> > some things in LabAsms that can be removed.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > I'm not sure know why word_to_stack -specifically- would slow
>>>>>>>>>>> > down by so
>>>>>>>>>>> > much. Could it be a one-off thing or did you hit that slowdown
>>>>>>>>>>> > multiple
>>>>>>>>>>> > times already?
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Another possibility: changes to the default compiler
>>>>>>>>>>> > configuration could
>>>>>>>>>>> > have slowed it down.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > For example this:
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/commit/98188addc34e5c3a034572c10eca7b3b41aff71c
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > (e.g. maybe more things got inlined)
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> > <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> I will put the timings from various runs of the bootstrap on
>>>>>>>>>>> >> this web page
>>>>>>>>>>> >> so we can more easily refer to them:
>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://cakeml.org/bootstrap-timing.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>> >> I've added partial timings for a recent revision (still
>>>>>>>>>>> >> waiting on the
>>>>>>>>>>> >> rest).
>>>>>>>>>>> >> There is currently a problem with word_to_stack, which is now
>>>>>>>>>>> >> taking 5
>>>>>>>>>>> >> hours where it used to take 1.
>>>>>>>>>>> >> And given that it seems to be stuck on "sec_ok" I'm wondering
>>>>>>>>>>> >> how much the
>>>>>>>>>>> >> asm_ok Asm check removal has really helped... I guess it was
>>>>>>>>>>> >> supposed to
>>>>>>>>>>> >> bring it down to 6h, so we'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> On 29 September 2016 at 10:47, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> >> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I have tried running the "sec_ok" part of the bootstrap with
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the asm_ok
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> checks for Asm lines turned off. Two things to report:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> The time is significantly improved:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> runtime: 6h02m19s, gctime: 30m06s, systime: 3m11s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> (compared to previously: 10h46m09s, gctime: 1h07m37s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 5m21s.)
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Secondly, this timing information is bogus: the wall clock
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> time was
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> definitely under 2 hours (I didn't check precisely). I expect
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> timing for
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> threads in parallel execution are added sequentially. So for
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the parts of
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the bootstrap run in parallel, the timings probably need to
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> be divided by up
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> to 8 to get an accurate picture. Perhaps I should annotate
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> which ones are in
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> parallel and which not.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I think it's worthwhile removing the asm_ok checks. I can
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> help doing so
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> if someone else sets up some cheated theorems to fill in.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On 8 September 2016 at 14:33, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Here are some timings now including the last step
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> (x64Bootstrap).
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> (The commit number doesn't exactly match the output labels,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> since I
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> changed some of that (about to be committed) in the middle.)
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Here we can see that the biggest problem (>10 hours) is the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> checking
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> that all the lines in the final ASM code satisfy
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> line_ok_light (i.e., the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> "sec_ok" thing below). But there are a few steps that take
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 1-2 hours each,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> and then a few more that take 20-40 mins, so ... definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> more than an
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> overnight job still...
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 1a939d3
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m49s, gctime: 3.4s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.35667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m56s, gctime: 5.5s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.84000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.4s, gctime: 2.4s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.15667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m32s, gctime: 8.9s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.68667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 14.1s, gctime: 1.4s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.06667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.3s, gctime: 1.1s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.05667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m36s, gctime: 12.6s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.88000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_bvi:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> ... inline: runtime: 6.1s, gctime: 1.2s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.09333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> ... optimise: runtime: 24m53s, gctime: 1m53s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 17.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m27s, gctime: 11.9s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 1.5s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m11s, gctime: 21.4s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 1.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m28s, gctime: 30.4s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 2.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> word_to_word: runtime: 1h00m52s, gctime: 5m53s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 34.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> clash: runtime: 5m06s, gctime: 22.3s, systime: 2.8s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m31s, gctime: 1.4s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 0.77667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> chunk: runtime: 1h08m52s, gctime: 6m06s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 28.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> (chunk results) runtime: 11m49s, gctime: 1m13s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 7.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h35m38s, gctime: 3m53s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 9.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 23m27s, gctime: 45.7s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 6.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> stack_remove: runtime: 19m15s, gctime: 21.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 4.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m20s, gctime: 24.9s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 3.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 42m12s, gctime: 9m27s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 10.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> filter_skip: runtime: 3m56s, gctime: 24.7s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 3.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> ffi_limit: runtime: 2m33s, gctime: 1m39s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 3.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> enc_sec: runtime: 25m01s, gctime: 1m40s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 11.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> sec_length: runtime: 4m11s, gctime: 48.9s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 3.5s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> compute_labels: runtime: 1h17m12s, gctime: 13m50s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 58.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> enc_secs_again: runtime: 2h00m15s, gctime: 24m27s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 1m46s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> upd_lab_len: runtime: 5m51s, gctime: 55.9s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 3.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> sec_length2: runtime: 3m32s, gctime: 8.4s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 1.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> compute_labels2: runtime: 1h27m09s, gctime: 22m29s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 1m17s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> enc_secs_again2: runtime: 2h37m41s, gctime: 1h03m15s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 3m01s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> pad_sectionruntime: 8m47s, gctime: 35.8s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 3.8s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> sec_ok: runtime: 10h46m09s, gctime: 1h07m37s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 5m21s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> all_secs_ok: runtime: 4.5s, gctime: 0.07667s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 0.00333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> prog_to_bytes: runtime: 7m27s, gctime: 2m23s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 6.3s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> flat_bytes: runtime: 45m21s, gctime: 8m25s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 8.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> expand_defs: runtime: 49m25s, gctime: 31m53s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> systime: 1.6s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> On 7 September 2016 at 08:43, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> More timing for a later commit. I believe this one includes
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Magnus's
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> changes to add compile_seqs, which seem not to have had
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> much effect. (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> hoping I haven't messed up the timing somehow... it's
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> surprising how stable
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> they are...)
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> commit: 83b3aaf
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m50s, gctime: 5.8s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 1.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m41s, gctime: 4.2s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.65000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 11.5s, gctime: 6.4s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.46333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m27s, gctime: 6.8s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.89000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 14.7s, gctime: 1.7s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.11667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.5s, gctime: 1.1s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.06333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m29s, gctime: 5.6s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.28333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_bvi:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> ... inline: runtime: 6.3s, gctime: 1.3s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.06333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> ... optimise: runtime: 23m26s, gctime: 28.8s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 6.3s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m18s, gctime: 4.1s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.25000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m23s, gctime: 44.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 3.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m23s, gctime: 39.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 3.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 58m18s, gctime: 4m53s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 30.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> clash: runtime: 5m01s, gctime: 18.4s, systime: 2.5s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m31s, gctime: 1.9s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 0.20667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h01m18s, gctime: 1m13s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 22.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> (chunk results) runtime: 14m26s, gctime: 5m57s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 9.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h29m05s, gctime: 4m38s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> 14.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 23m03s, gctime: 58.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 5.8s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 20m09s, gctime: 1m29s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 6.5s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m05s, gctime: 41.6s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 3.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 35m11s, gctime: 2m54s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> systime: 12.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On 6 September 2016 at 10:11, Yong Kiam
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <tanyongkiam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm, that is surprising. I expected the main function to
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> have a good
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> number of If-s (which my change should have helped with),
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> but it seems like
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> that didn't affect the time at all.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Here are two possibilities:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Caching lookups into the colouring function for the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> chunk step. The
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> function is defined as an option-lookup into an oracle
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> sptree:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/blob/9937677d34446adace9f29d5719131f9a5b4aeac/compiler/backend/reg_alloc/reg_allocScript.sml#L110
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how much that will help though, since the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> variable names
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> should be in SSA already, so it is mostly looking up
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> different things each
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Make splitting more aggressive, i.e. the main function
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> divided into more pieces so that its colouring sptree
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> isn't too big (it gets
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> larger when there are more variables too).
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Also, are you getting some kind of effect where every
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> parallel thread
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> is just waiting for one to finish (namely the one working
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> on the main
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> function)? 2) might help divide the work more evenly.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some more timings, for two recent commits. Not a big
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> difference, it
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> seems.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> commit: 69ac2f9
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m45s, gctime: 3.8s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.36667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m36s, gctime: 5.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.90667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.3s, gctime: 2.3s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.17000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m27s, gctime: 9.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 1.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 13.9s, gctime: 1.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.10333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.2s, gctime: 1.1s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.07000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m28s, gctime: 5.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.22667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_bvi: ... inline: runtime: 6.0s, gctime: 1.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.09000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... optimise:runtime: 23m27s, gctime: 6.9s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 3.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m33s, gctime: 19.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 1.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m29s, gctime: 51.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 3.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m41s, gctime: 50.2s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 58m21s, gctime: 4m28s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 28.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> clash: runtime: 4m58s, gctime: 15.5s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m32s, gctime: 1.8s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.24000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h13m05s, gctime: 6m06s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 26.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (chunk results) runtime: 13m31s, gctime: 2m47s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 14.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h32m52s, gctime: 6m12s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 12.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 23m03s, gctime: 42.2s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 5.8s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 19m08s, gctime: 22.7s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 4.3s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m45s, gctime: 1m05s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 5.3s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 41m59s, gctime: 9m22s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 8.6s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> commit: 9937677
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m51s, gctime: 5.9s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.90000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m48s, gctime: 4.4s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.71667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.2s, gctime: 2.3s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.15667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m30s, gctime: 9.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 1.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 14.3s, gctime: 1.6s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.09000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.2s, gctime: 0.95667s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.07333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m28s, gctime: 5.2s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.32667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_bvi: ... inline: runtime: 5.8s, gctime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.88000s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.05333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... optimise: runtime: 23m24s, gctime: 5.8s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 3.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m27s, gctime: 12.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 0.78333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m18s, gctime: 34.2s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 3.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m24s, gctime: 37.4s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.8s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 57m40s, gctime: 4m56s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 30.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> clash: runtime: 5m12s, gctime: 33.6s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m31s, gctime: 1.8s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.15667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h07m54s, gctime: 6m07s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 29.5s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (chunk results) runtime: 13m21s, gctime: 2m54s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 14.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h34m00s, gctime: 7m32s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 22m35s, gctime: 18.7s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 3.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 19m04s, gctime: 16.7s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 3.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m13s, gctime: 37.8s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 4.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 36m21s, gctime: 3m29s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> systime: 13.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1 September 2016 at 09:04, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, updated timings for the middle bit, as of 4d0d56b
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (which is
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> also for the front half timings in my previous email).
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 7m42s, gctime: 35.7s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 56m07s, gctime: 4m48s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime: 28.7s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> clash: runtime: 4m48s, gctime: 16.0s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2.2s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m21s, gctime: 1.7s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 0.10667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h10m00s, gctime: 6m06s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 27.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (use chunk) runtime: 12m26s, gctime: 2m29s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime: 11.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h29m28s, gctime: 7m23s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime: 8.0s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 21m13s, gctime: 24.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime: 3.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 18m12s, gctime: 46.6s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime: 4.3s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stack_names: runtime: 14m08s, gctime: 32.1s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime: 4.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 36m41s, gctime: 1m19s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> systime: 10.6s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It doesn't look like 91d539b made a huge difference.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1 September 2016 at 08:42, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have some timings for the front half of the backend
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> now:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m45s, gctime: 9.6s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.40000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 7m00s, gctime: 5.4s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.80667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.0s, gctime: 2.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime: 0.13333s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m18s, gctime: 4.5s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.67000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 15.9s, gctime: 3.7s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.50667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.0s, gctime: 1.1s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.07000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m18s, gctime: 5.2s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.36000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_bvi:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... inline: runtime: 5.8s, gctime: 1.1s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime: 0.07667s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... optimise: runtime: 22m52s, gctime: 30.1s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime: 6.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m05s, gctime: 6.9s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.72000s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 5m44s, gctime: 28.8s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> systime: 2.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why there are suspicious timings for
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> things like
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stack_alloc. One possibility is that the "time"
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> function adds up times
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> across all parallel threads. In that case, it would
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> make sense to divide the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> time by 8. I would need to investigate whether this is
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> actually what's going
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on...
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 30 August 2016 at 19:36, Magnus Myreen
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <magnus.myreen at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My guess is that evaluation times get slower once we
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pass dataLang
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> because the programs become a lot larger once the data
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> abstraction
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> been removed.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are however some suspicious looking timings
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> here. I note
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stack_alloc does near to nothing, but still takes 31
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> minutes to
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here is stack_alloc's main compiler function:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/blob/master/compiler/backend/stack_allocScript.sml#L166
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Magnus
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 30 August 2016 at 03:43, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > I have some information now on where slow parts of
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > the bootstrap
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > are, which we could use to direct effort in case we
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > want to
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > speed things up.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Currently I have timings for between dataLang and
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > labLang. (I
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > know the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > phases above dataLang are mostly quick, and the ones
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > after
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > labLang are
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > mostly slow, but I will have to get actual numbers
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > later)
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > eval data_to_word: runtime: 7m48s, gctime: 21.9s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime: 2.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > word_to_word: runtime: 55m07s, gctime: 5m31s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 30.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > clash: runtime: 5m33s, gctime: 34.4s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime: 4.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > (external oracle) runtime: 2m30s, gctime: 12.1s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 1.5s
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > chunk: runtime: 1h04m14s, gctime: 1m37s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime: 20.8s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > (use results of chunk) runtime: 11m21s, gctime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 2m00s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 10.1s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h34m21s, gctime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 9m42s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime: 9.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > stack_alloc: runtime: 31m55s, gctime: 30.3s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 5.4s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > stack_remove: runtime: 25m43s, gctime: 1m32s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 6.9s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > stack_names: runtime: 22m03s, gctime: 3m01s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 6.6s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > stack_to_lab: runtime: 56m00s, gctime: 4m38s,
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 23.8s.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > What exactly these different phases are doing can be
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > found by
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > looking at
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/blob/master/compiler/bootstrap/evaluation/to_lab_x64BootstrapScript.sml.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > I think the one confusingly called "chunk" means
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > checking the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > results of the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > external reg. alloc oracle.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Dev at cakeml.org
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/dev
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dev at cakeml.org
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/dev
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> >> Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> >> Developers at cakeml.org
>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/developers
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> > Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> > Developers at cakeml.org
>>>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/developers
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the Developers
mailing list