Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: possible lisp reader enhancement/modification ?JUNK MAIL? 4

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

OK, as for the gbc counter problem, please try this patch:

=============================================================================
Index: gbc.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/gcl/gcl/o/gbc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -r1.13 gbc.c
--- gbc.c       15 Feb 2003 00:38:28 -0000      1.13
+++ gbc.c       30 Jul 2003 14:32:32 -0000
@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@
 bool saving_system;
 static int gc_time = -1;
 static int gc_start = 0;
+static int gc_recursive = 0;
 int runtime(void);
 int sgc_enabled=0;
 int  first_protectable_page =0;
@@ -1091,7 +1092,7 @@
     fflush(stdout);
   }
 #endif
-  if (gc_time >=0) {gc_start=runtime();}
+  if (gc_time >=0 && !gc_recursive++) {gc_start=runtime();}
   
   maxpage = page(heap_end);
   
@@ -1326,14 +1327,16 @@
   if (in_sgc && sgc_enabled==0)
     sgc_start();
   
-  if(gc_time>=0) {gc_time=gc_time+(gc_start=(runtime()-gc_start));}
+  if(gc_time>=0 && !--gc_recursive) 
{gc_time=gc_time+(gc_start=(runtime()-gc_start));}
   
   if (sSAnotify_gbcA->s.s_dbind != Cnil) {
     
-    fprintf(stdout, "(T=%d).GC finished]\n",
-           gc_start
-           );
+    if (gc_recursive)
+      fprintf(stdout, "(T=...).GC finished]\n");
+    else
+      fprintf(stdout, "(T=%d).GC finished]\n",gc_start);
     fflush(stdout);
+
   }
=============================================================================

>From what I can gather, you have maybe a slight inefficiency in your
reloc page gbc, but in general gbc doesn't seem to be the issue.
Please verify this for me.  

There are at least two profiling modes available to gcl, a native one
using (si::prof ...) and one built on top of the external gprof, the
latter of which is more familiar to me.  Do you have any experience
with these?  I'll try to get a few profiles on 'maxima test', and we
can go from there.

Take care,
   


"Matt Kaufmann" <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi, Camm --
> 
> OK, I re-ran and kept an eye on the screen this time.  There were two full gcs
> with high "T=" numbers, and each actually took only a few seconds (I looked
> away from the screen so I don't have an exact timing, but I think well under a
> minute each, maybe much less.)
> 
> What I noticed is that the high "T=" numbers occur exactly when the full gc
> includes a "GC for RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages".  That has been the case for all
> three runs that I have a record of.  For example, in this latest run here are
> the two high "T=" full gcs, followed by an example of a low "T=" full gcl.
> 
> ....
> 
> [SGC for 0 CFUN pages..(9590 writable)..[SGC off] (doing full gc)[GC for 750 
> RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages..(T=230).GC finished]
> [SGC on](T=383688).GC finished]
> 
> ....
> 
> [SGC for 0 RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages..(10942 writable)..(T=19).GC finished]
> [SGC for 0 CFUN pages..(11014 writable)..[SGC off] (doing full gc)[GC for 750 
> RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages..(T=225).GC finished]
> [SGC on](T=396526).GC finished]
> [SGC for 0 RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages..(9294 writable)..(T=14).GC finished]
> 
> ....
> 
> [SGC for 0 CFUN pages..(11177 writable)..[SGC off] (doing full gc)[SGC 
> on](T=340).GC finished]
> 
> ....
> 
> So, I can imagine that the counters used for full gcs are somehow getting
> messed up by the "GC for 750 RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages".
> 
> I hope this helps.  I realize that it doesn't really explain the bigger issue,
> of where the time is really being spent in the run.
> 
> Thanks --
> -- Matt
>    cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
>    From: "Camm Maguire" <address@hidden>
>    Date: 28 Jul 2003 20:49:19 -0400
>    User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
>    X-WSS-ID: 133B1B2B7333583-01-01
>    Content-Type: text/plain;
>     charset=us-ascii
> 
>    Greetings!  Matt, could you fill in any missing log lines excluded by
>    the grep from these locations:
> 
> 
>    > [SGC for 0 RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages..(10703 writable)..(T=19).GC 
> finished]
>    > ACL2 !>>[SGC for 0 CFUN pages..(10762 writable)..[SGC off] (doing full 
> gc)[GC for 750 RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages..(T=226).GC finished]
>    > [SGC on](T=247161).GC finished]
>    > [SGC for 74 FIXNUM pages..(8845 writable)..(T=11).GC finished]
> 
> 
> 
>    > [SGC for 3000 CONS pages..(21898 writable)..(T=64).GC finished]
>    > [SGC for 0 CFUN pages..(21908 writable)..[SGC off] (doing full gc)[GC 
> for 1125 RELOCATABLE-BLOCKS pages..(T=91).GC finished]
>    > [SGC on](T=438992).GC finished]
>    > [SGC for 232 FIXNUM pages..(9121 writable)..(T=14).GC finished]
> 
>    These two instances account for nearly all your reported GBC time,
>    though it is possible these reported values are in error.  Would be
>    nice if someone actually watched the run at this point and determined
>    what the pause was roughly with a wall clock.  
> 
>    Take care,
> 
> 
>    -- 
>    Camm Maguire                                               address@hidden
>    ==========================================================================
>    "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gcl-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcl-devel
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah