[CakeML-Dev] Bootstrap evaluation timings

Ramana Kumar Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sun Nov 27 22:45:00 UTC 2016


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/bootst
>>>>>>> rap/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/98188addc34e5c3a0345
>>>>>>>> 72c10eca7b3b41aff71c
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > (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/9937677d34446adace9f29
>>>>>>>> d5719131f9a5b4aeac/compiler/backend/reg_alloc/reg_allocScrip
>>>>>>>> t.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/cake
>>>>>>>> ml/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/cake
>>>>>>>> ml/blob/master/compiler/bootstrap/evaluation/to_lab_x64Boots
>>>>>>>> trapScript.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/20161128/62397852/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Developers mailing list