[darcs-users] darcs patch: switch Darcs.Patch.FileName to be ByteString.Char8 int...

Simon Marlow marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Sep 25 11:34:03 UTC 2009


On 24/09/2009 04:57, Jason Dagit wrote:
> I ran this more with normal builds and just the GC statistics.  Here is
> what we see:
> unmodified darcs:
> 469 MB total memory in use (3 MB lost due to fragmentation)
> Total time   26.51s  ( 29.76s elapsed)
> Productivity  85.6% of total user, 76.2% of total elapsed
>
> 469 MB total memory in use (3 MB lost due to fragmentation)
> Total time   26.59s  ( 32.47s elapsed)
> Productivity  85.6% of total user, 70.1% of total elapsed
>
> 469 MB total memory in use (3 MB lost due to fragmentation)
> Total time   26.54s  ( 29.95s elapsed)
> Productivity  85.5% of total user, 75.8% of total elapsed
>
> With my patch applied:
> 554 MB total memory in use (4 MB lost due to fragmentation)
> Total time   23.30s  ( 31.56s elapsed)
> Productivity  83.1% of total user, 61.3% of total elapsed
>
> 554 MB total memory in use (4 MB lost due to fragmentation)
> Total time   22.85s  ( 26.33s elapsed)
> Productivity  82.9% of total user, 71.9% of total elapsed
>
> 554 MB total memory in use (4 MB lost due to fragmentation)
> Total time   22.88s  ( 26.38s elapsed)
> Productivity  82.8% of total user, 71.8% of total elapsed
>
> Now that the profiler is disabled the productivity with my changes is
> less, the run-time is maybe improved by 2-3 seconds, and the memory
> usage has increased by almost 100 megs.  I can only assume that the
> profiling is interfering with my results a fair bit.

The profile graphs in your previous message showed a residency of around 
~30M before your patch, and ~6M after your patch.  Which seems like a 
worthwhile saving.  I presume those graphs were from a different test 
case?  If not, then something very strange is going on.  If they are 
from a different test case, then do the numbers stand up when using the 
non-profiled darcs?

Cheers,
	Simon


More information about the darcs-users mailing list