| msg41287 - (view) |
Author: Armin Rigo (arigo) *  |
Date: 2002-10-01 23:20 |
| Psyco-friendly patch #2. A very very small statistic-collecting patch. pystate.h: added a field at the end of the PyThreadStruct: int tick_counter; ceval.c: eval_frame(): tstate->tick_counter is incremented whenever the check_interval ticker reaches zero. The purpose is to give a useful measure of the number of interpreted bytecode instructions in a given thread. This extremely lightweight statistic collector can be of interest to profilers (like psyco.jit()). We can safely guess that a single integer increment every 100 interpreted bytecode instructions will go entierely unnoticed in any performance measure. [This is true for pystone.py.] |
|
|
| msg41288 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2002-10-04 10:42 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 I see no harm in this. Are you sure it's actually going to be useful, though? |
|
|
| msg41289 - (view) |
Author: Armin Rigo (arigo) * |
Date: 2002-10-04 14:36 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=4771 It is the only way I could work out so far that can "predict" how much a function will be accelerated when run under Psyco. This is a very precious indication for an automatic Psyco-binder. The following table shows the results with the various test functions of the distribution's "test.py" file: (fn name) (speed-up) (bytecode insns per second) f1 106.00 2310545 f4 11.33 2819100 f5 12.08 2992445 f6 1.35 412022 f7 2.24 1331353 f7bis 10.29 1632296 The third column is '(tick_counter * check_interval) / execution_time'. The correlation between the two columns is admittedly not perfect, but still we can see that it was not worthy to try and accelerate f6 because it didn't spend a lot of time actually interpreting bytecodes. Note that similar information could be obtained by setting a line-tracing hook, counting not instructions but lines (which is less precise but still a good approximation). However, line tracing is *much* too slow for anything but debugging usage. |
|
|
| msg41290 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2002-10-06 20:45 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6380 I'd like to get this into 2.2.2. MWH, can you check it in? |
|
|
| msg41291 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2002-10-07 09:42 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 Done in Include/pystate.h revision 2.18.16.1 Python/ceval.c revision 2.301.4.7 Armin, I don't know how you generated this patch, but it would have been easier to apply if it had been rooted in the "src" directory, like e.g.: $ cvs diff Include/pystate.h Python/ceval.c > ~/diff |
|
|
| msg41292 - (view) |
Author: Armin Rigo (arigo) * |
Date: 2002-10-07 14:17 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=4771 Uploaded the 2.3 patch (this one cleanly generated -- for the other one I just cat'ed two patches in one). |
|
|
| msg41293 - (view) |
Author: Armin Rigo (arigo) * |
Date: 2002-10-09 13:20 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=4771 Attached an updated diff for 2.3. This one doesn't have Windows line endings and includes the initialization of tick_counter to 0 that was added by Guido in the latest 2.2.2. (I thought it was unnecessary to initialize it to anything because profilers would only be interested in differences.) |
|
|
| msg41294 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2002-11-08 12:56 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 I got lazy and checked in all the psyco patches at once: Include/pystate.h revision 2.21 Modules/pyexpat.c revision 2.76 Python/ceval.c revision 2.340 Python/pystate.c revision 2.22 |
|
|