Re: Rewrite Mutable_properties based on vector<SCM> (issue 575990043 by address@hidden)

[hanwenn]

On 2020/04/13 17:17:31, hanwenn wrote:
> On 2020/04/13 16:58:41, hanwenn wrote:
> > On 2020/04/13 16:40:34, hahnjo wrote:
> > > I gave this patch a try on my system, time lilypond MSDM.ly,
'real' time, 3
> > > repetitions
> > > 
> > > baseline (master, 0e7c26d40f):
> > > 0m42,533s; 0m42,547s; 0m42,430s
> > > 
> > > Abstract Grob property storage into Mutable_properties.
> > > (https://codereview.appspot.com/561640043)
> > > 0m41,102s; 0m41,036s; 0m40,861s
> > > 
> > > Rewrite Mutable_properties based on vector<SCM>
> > > (https://codereview.appspot.com/575990043/)
> > > 0m42,461s; 0m42,632s; 0m42,212s
> > > 
> > > (I did not apply any of the other optimization patches posted in
the last
> > days.)
> > > If at all, Issue 561640043 seems to show some benefit. This
_could_ be
> because
> > > Grob::Grob (Grob const &s) doesn't call ly_deep_copy anymore, but
I've only
> > > looked into this very briefly because I think the introduction of
> > > Mutable_properties makes sense in any case. However I clearly
don't see 7%
> > > improvement for this patch. Is there anything I missed?
> > 
> > No, I'll have a look at some other systems. You're right about the
deep copy,
> > and it's an explanation.
> > 
> > What machine are you trying this with? For the record, I see the
difference
> with
> > GUILE 1.8 on Fedora 31 on a T460p (i5 6440HQ 2.6Ghz). I'll try with
the other
> > machines that I have for comparison.
> 
> Grumbl.  I think some of the timings must have used the -pg flag I
used to
> gather profiling data :-(

Actually, it looks like I have been measuring noise. Thermal throttling?


It looks like I can get reproducible timings if I downclock the CPU from
2.6 to 2.0Ghz

https://codereview.appspot.com/575990043/