Message 157466 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub , and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	pitrou
Recipients	Jim.Jewett, Mark.Shannon, benjamin.peterson, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, jcea, jcon, pitrou, pjenvey, rhettinger, terry.reedy, vstinner
Date	2012年04月04日.11:34:04
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1333538931.3503.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to	<1333380073.05.0.0268479977575.issue13903@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
> I'm not bothered by the regression in "silent_logging", > as it is a micro benchmark with a very short running time. I'm not concerned about the micro-benchmark itself but the fact that it might hint at a wider problem. Also, I don't get your remark about it running in a short time. Your patch AFAICT doesn't need any warm up period to exhibit any improvements. > Reducing the method-cache size from 210 to 29 allows the working > set to fit better in the cache. > This fixes the regression in "mako", but makes OO programs that use > few objects (such as richards) a bit slower. I don't think we should reduce the size of the method cache. 1024 is not a very large number, and might even be too small for complex OO programs. I also think that, apart from the dict storage changes, your patch should strive not to change any other tunables. Otherwise we're really comparing apples to oranges.

Content

> I'm not bothered by the regression in "silent_logging",
> as it is a micro benchmark with a very short running time.
I'm not concerned about the micro-benchmark itself but the fact that it
might hint at a wider problem.
Also, I don't get your remark about it running in a short time. Your
patch AFAICT doesn't need any warm up period to exhibit any
improvements.
> Reducing the method-cache size from 2**10 to 2**9 allows the working
> set to fit better in the cache.
> This fixes the regression in "mako", but makes OO programs that use
> few objects (such as richards) a bit slower.
I don't think we should reduce the size of the method cache. 1024 is not
a very large number, and might even be too small for complex OO
programs.
I also think that, apart from the dict storage changes, your patch
should strive not to change any other tunables. Otherwise we're really
comparing apples to oranges.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2012年04月04日 11:34:05	pitrou	set	recipients: + pitrou, rhettinger, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, jcea, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, pjenvey, benjamin.peterson, Mark.Shannon, jcon, Jim.Jewett
2012年04月04日 11:34:05	pitrou	link	issue13903 messages
2012年04月04日 11:34:04	pitrou	create

homepage