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

Simon Marlow marlowsd at gmail.com
Mon Sep 28 08:00:39 UTC 2009


On 27/09/2009 19:10, Jason Dagit wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com
> <mailto:marlowsd at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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?
>
>
> Simon,
>
> I just tried my test case with retainer profiling and it consistently
> segfaults.
>
> My GHC is 6.10.4 on OSX 10.5.8.  I'll make a backup on my current source
> code, but I'm not sure how to make that available to you.  Is there
> anything more info I could send you to help you figure out why it
> segfaults for me?  I know I've done retainer profiling on this machine
> on darcs with this ghc in the past so I think it's related to my current
> build or configuration.

If you could collect all the information you have and put it in a ticket 
here: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/newticket?type=bug that would 
be great.  Retainer profiling is an old and crufty piece of code 
originally written by an intern, so it does break from time to time.

Cheers,
	Simon



More information about the darcs-users mailing list