public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug other/10944] alloc_page in ggc-page.c is slow
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:37:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031013143714.16005.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030522192332.10944.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10944


steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2003-06-01 18:58:30         |2003-10-13 14:37:14
               date|                            |


------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-10-13 14:37 -------
The new patch implements suggestion 1 from last nights list.

Andrew, you identified the loop over free_pages as a time consumer, but now that
it is gone, I get virtually no measurable time improvements (10ths of seconds on
>1min total compilation time) for the test case for PR8361.  Which (not
surprisingly) once again shows that GC is slow because with each call
ggc_collect we need to do more and more marking...

Are you absolutely, positively sure that this loop is a performance hog? 
Perhaps you can try the patch, it bootstrappes (c,objc,c++) and showed no
regressions on i686.  So far I haven't found convincing evidence that it
improves performance significantly except for the most pathological (artificial)
cases.

Sigh, back to waiting for a new GC strategy...


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-10-13 14:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20030522192332.10944.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
2003-10-12 20:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-13 14:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2003-11-30  8:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-20 16:31 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-23  2:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-17 22:59 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2004-02-06  1:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <20030522192332.10944.pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
2003-06-01 18:58 ` zack@gcc.gnu.org
2003-05-23 22:54 pinskia@physics.uc.edu
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-05-23 22:54 pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-05-23 22:51 zack@gcc.gnu.org
2003-05-23 22:08 zack@gcc.gnu.org
2003-05-23 20:29 pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-05-23 18:14 pinskia@physics.uc.edu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20031013143714.16005.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).