[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Starting a JIT backend for Ravi yet again
- From: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@...>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:27:14 +0100
Hi Kein-Hong ,
On 29 September 2017 at 04:32, KHMan <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/2017 5:37 AM, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
>> [snipped all]
>> However, looking at the generated C code made me think ... perhaps it
>> is worth trying to write a hand-coded JIT compiler. The thing about
>> the generated code is that there is not a lot of stack usage
> I am a little puzzled here: "there is not a lot of stack usage". (I only
> glanced at the C example you posted not long ago, and I have never looked
> into Ravi in detail.) If (via ) the usual value stack is used for normal
> Lua code, then it's true there is not a lot of C stack usage. But the really
> big wins happen when we bypass the Lua value stack.
I think using the C stack for Lua code execution is quite hard to do
... as anytime an operation can call something then the values need to
be flushed to Lua stack, and read back after the call. I am not sure
whether the cost of this would be justified except for functions that
have no calls (unlikely). Note that calls here mean anything going out
of the VM loop - such as table operations or metamethods, and not just
actual function calls.
> Looking at , "Ravi Int" (interpreted?) has practically the same
> performance as Lua 5.3.2.
Ravi's interpreter performance for standard Lua code is slightly worse
than Lua. This is I think due to a) larger VM, b) additional branching
as Ravi has 2 additional table sub types. When using type annotations,
depending upon the benchmark, the interpreter does better than Lua,
but the difference is not that great. The improvement only becomes
greater when the type annotated code is JITed.
> For fornum_test1.lua, the 0.309 looks weird -- I don't quite believe it. Was
> the "j = i" optimized away by either LLVM or dynamically by the CPU? Should
> be investigated. If so, it's not valid as a benchmark test, or you should
> add a footnote.
I think the loop is still being executed. libgccjit produces a number
like 0.001 which is because it eliminates the loop entirely. But then
libgccjit performs worse in other cases.
> Same with fornum_test3.lua, you have a "j = k" there, same potential
> problem. The disparity between the 4.748 of Ravi(LLVM) and the 16.74 of
> LuaJIT2.1 Int is suspicious. LuaJIT is very good and Ravi(LLVM) wipes it
> out? Should be investigated. If something is optimized away entirely, then
> it is an unfair benchmark.
Here LuaJIT is suffering from the lack of predictability in branching
I think. I have not investigated but I suspect it isn't using JIT due
> At that point, I am quite happy to stick to standard Lua plus C libraries,
> that's why I never started on any serious JIT stuff, ha ha. :-)
I agree and that is my conclusion as well as I posted earlier this
year. I have rearranged my own code so that scripting is used to
configure - but the performance sensitive parts are written in C/C++.
I now think that Lua's performance is adequate for most use cases. And
given Python's immense popularity, it is clear that performance in
scripting languages isn't the only criteria for success.
So at this point my efforts in Ravi are more for fun and learning.
Thanks and Regards