[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua versus Ravi versus Luajit - another perf test
- From: Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>
- Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 23:16:28 +0200
I have not read in enough detail to be sure of what I want
to say, so please just ignore if it is irrelevant.
Some strongly-typed languages have identifiers that signal
type. Fortran with the IJKLMN => integer convention and
IMPLICIT statement. Perl with those ugly suffixes.
Would efficiency and/ore user-friendliness be improved with
that kind of thing?
2015-03-07 23:06 GMT+02:00 Dibyendu Majumdar <email@example.com>:
> After adding some more bytecodes to the JIT compiler I was able to run
> a test that is more complex than the previous tests. The results are
> C:\github\ravi\ravi-tests>\luajit\luajit.exe mandel.lua 4000
> C:\github\ravi\ravi-tests>\lua-5.3.0\src\build\Release\lua.exe mandel.lua 4000
> C:\github\ravi\ravi-tests>..\build\Debug\lua.exe mandel1.ravi
> Due to limitations in supported bytecodes I had to hard-code the 4000
> parameter in mandel1.ravi.
> The test programs can be found at:
> My conclusion from the work done so is that the JIT compilation of Lua
> using LLVM is a worthwhile initiative. I feel that it will not be
> possible to beat Luajit for many use cases because of certain
> differences in approach and implementation.
> 1) Luajit uses an optimized representation of values. In Lua 5.3 and
> in Ravi, the value is 16 bytes - and many operations require two loads
> / two stores. Luajit therefore will always have an advantage here.
> 2) More work is needed to optimize fornum loops in Ravi. I have some
> ideas on what can be improved but have parked this for now as I want
> to get more coverage of Lua bytecodes first.
> 3) Luajit obviously is significant smaller in size when LLVM is added
> to the comparison. Using LLVM will tend to preclude Ravi's JIT engine
> from being useful in constrained devices - although ahead of time
> compilation could be used in such cases.
> One of my goals is to keep the code base relatively simple, and avoid
> very exotic optimizations. Code maintainability is very important to
> me. I also hope that keeping the implementation simple, and having it
> well documented will encourage others to participate and help in the
> Compatibility with Lua 5.3 is also important to me. However, I don't
> know what changes 5.4 will bring so it is difficult to foresee whether
> I can keep up with changes in mainstream Lua.
> LLVM appears to be best choice for JIT compilation despite its
> drawbacks. Firstly it has momentum and very active / well sponsored
> implementation team. I looked at various other alternatives but none
> has the same user base / momentum. LLVM also appears to be
> continuously improving - so all the advancements made in LLVM will
> accrue for free. Only cost is that they keep changing APIs with every
> major release (somewhat like Lua!) so it is pain to upgrade.
> Thanks and Regards