#lisp - Fri 4 May 2007 between 08:45 and 09:11

NY Lost Funds



mgrnikodemus: you suggest to completely get rid of the wihtout-gcing?
nikodemus"make-local-alien is part of sb-alien-internals" <-- as in not part of the interface
mgrjsnell: Why worse? I would guess that it'll not make it better. but actually worse?
nikodemusmgr: without looking at the code it is a bit hard to say, but it does sound like it
Xofnikodemus: aren't you meant to use with-alien?
mgrnikodemus: but it's only called by code generated by WITH-ALIEN. It's not that matlisp directly uses make-local-alien.
nikodemusmgr: ah, ok
jsnellmgr: because it means that you'll be dropping samples if the code block inside the without-gcing takes longer than .001 seconds to execute, rather than 0.01 seconds
nikodemusXof: yes
jsnellso you might think that such a code block is only taking x% of your total execution, but it's actually taking 10*x%
mgrjsnell: in case of .01 seconds there are absolutely less samples, as I've set :loop to nil.
jsnellI'm not particularily telling you to use a higher value. I'm just saying that if you're using without-gcing, your results might be very inaccurate
but if you think that this doesn't apply to you, feel free to ignore me
mgrnikodemus: probably some more context information helps, the docstring describes what the macro containing without-gcing does: ""WITH-VECTOR-DATA-ADDRESSES (var-list &body body) Execute the body with the variables in VAR-LIST appropriately bound. VAR-LIST should be a list of pairs. The first element is the address of the desired object; the second element is the variable whose address we want. Garbage collection is also disabled while executing the body."
Xofyou're not listening
sampling with a higher frequency will lead to a more misleading result in the region covered by without-gcing
mgrjsnell: I really do not want to ignore. I'm sorry if that sounds like it. I try to understand it; probably I get something wrong.
jsnelldisable interrupts; sample; sample; enable interrupts
only one of those samples will be delivered
mgrah, okay the samples during without-gcing are really just dropped? (As you've said before..) sorry
jsnellno! only one of them will be delivered
mgrjsnell: sorry, I've written it before having read your latest lines. (probably lag)
jsnell: uhm, sorry for the direct question, but *why* is it that only one of them is delivered?
nikodemusmgr: sorry, but i don't have time right now to dig into this. but if the without-gcing is wrapped around the body of a macro, then all the call-sites using it need to be audited, since any one of them may be depending on that
mgrnikodemus: Okay, thank you for your time.
nikodemusbut i also re-iterate that neither WITH-ALIEN or MAKE-ALIEN allocated objects are moved by the gc
mgrnikodemus: okay.
Xofmgr: basically, because we mustn't act on any interrupts while interrupts are disabled, so we have to queue them, and we only have space for one interrupt in the queue
mgrI think that it's total (runtime) overhead for my application to use matlisp at all. I'll probably just implement the tiny bit that I need in lisp and drop using matlisp. My program has only very small matrices. But I wanted to start fast and just use an existing library. I think most of the time is not spend in actual computation but in copying and allocating objects.
but before implementing a replacement I wanted to analyse the existing version a bit.
Xof: Okay.
jsnellnikodemus: would you be surprised if without-gcing was suffering from the same kind of race that without-spinlock-and-without-gcing?
mgrjsnell, nikodemus, Xof: thank you all for your patience. I'm a bit sorry to have occupied time of all of you.
jsnell: perhaps it would be a good idea to mention how sb-prof works in SBCL's manual.
jsnellcould be
Xofclim pane-viewport-region
specbothttp://bauhh.dyndns.org:8000/clim-spec/29-3.html#_1641
mgrI was a bit surprised that the sampling-interval was 0.01 seconds which seemed to be quite a long time for me. But that's probably the reason why the default of max-sampling seems to be quite high (for me). (I hope I don't get this wrong as well.)
jsnellnot really. 0.01 seems like a reasonably frequent value; it means that with a program that runs for 10 seconds, you get 1000 samples. and that is usually enough to paint a pretty accurate picture of what's happening
Xofmeh

Page: 2 9 16 23 

IrcArchive

NY Lost Funds