[CakeML-Dev] Bootstrap evaluation timings
Ramana Kumar
Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk
Thu Nov 17 22:46:05 UTC 2016
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/98188addc34e5c3a034572c10eca7b
> 3b41aff71c
> >
> > (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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cakeml.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20161118/faceb0df/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Developers
mailing list