Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > couple quick questions about YARV

Reply
Thread Tools

couple quick questions about YARV

 
 
Joshua Haberman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2006
I know YARV is far from finished, but:

1. any idea what the up-front cost for starting up YARV will be? I'm
just hoping we won't see 1 second of disk churn that we've come to
expect from the JVM.

2. will existing Ruby extensions continue to work?

Josh


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Yukihiro Matsumoto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-13-2006
Hi,

In message "Re: couple quick questions about YARV"
on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:28:32 +0900, Joshua Haberman <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

|1. any idea what the up-front cost for starting up YARV will be? I'm
|just hoping we won't see 1 second of disk churn that we've come to
|expect from the JVM.

% ruby1.8 -ve 0
ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [i486-linux]
-e:1: warning: useless use of a literal in void context

real 0m0.009s
user 0m0.004s
sys 0m0.001s

% ruby.yarv -ve 0
ruby 1.9.0 (2006-02-09) [i686-linux]
YARVCore 0.3.3 (rev: 389) [opts: ]
warning: useless use of a literal in void context

real 0m0.006s
user 0m0.004s
sys 0m0.001s


|2. will existing Ruby extensions continue to work?

Currently, yes. No promise for the future.


matz.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
stijn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-13-2006
Not to hijack the OP's thread, but a follow-up question:

what speed-up can realistically be expected? I 've seen Koichi's slides
and they look impressive but if I am not mistaken the optimizations
looked to be concerned with basic math operations and so on. what about
function calls / blocks / object instantiations / hash and array
implementation / .... ? Is YARV going to muscle those around as well,
or not really?
if so (or if not), what performance improvements would be within reach?


thanks,
stijn

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kent Sibilev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-13-2006
I've just tried:

$ cat bm.rb
def m
yield
end

i =3D 0
1000000.times do
i =3D m { m{ i } + 1}
end

puts i
$ time ruby bm.rb
1000000

real 0m11.721s
user 0m9.927s
sys 0m0.081s
$ time ruby.yarv bm.rb
1000000

real 0m2.376s
user 0m2.275s
sys 0m0.026s


It's silly example, but it looks very impressive anyway.

Kent.

On 2/12/06, stijn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Not to hijack the OP's thread, but a follow-up question:
>
> what speed-up can realistically be expected? I 've seen Koichi's slides
> and they look impressive but if I am not mistaken the optimizations
> looked to be concerned with basic math operations and so on. what about
> function calls / blocks / object instantiations / hash and array
> implementation / .... ? Is YARV going to muscle those around as well,
> or not really?
> if so (or if not), what performance improvements would be within reach?
>
>
> thanks,
> stijn
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ilmari Heikkinen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2006
PiBGb3IgYSBzbGlnaHRseSBtb3JlIHJhZGljYWwgcXVlc3Rpb2 46IGFyZSB0aGVyZSBhbnkgbG9u
Zy10ZXJtIHBsYW5zCj4gdG8gcmV2aXNpdCB0aGUgZ2FyYmFnZS 1jb2xsZWN0aW9uIHN0cmF0ZWd5
PyAgRm9yIGludGVyYWN0aXZlCj4gcHJvZ3JhbXMsIGl0IGlzIH JlYWxseSB1bmRlc2lyYWJsZSB0
byBoYXZlIHRoZSB3aG9sZSBwcm9ncmFtIGxvY2sgdXAKPiBmcm 9tIHRpbWUgdG8gdGltZSAod2hp
bGUgdGhlIGdhcmJhZ2UgY29sbGVjdG9yIHJ1bnMpLiAgSSBrbm 93IEphdmEKPiBoYXMgaW1wbGVt
ZW50ZWQgc29tZSBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZSBnYXJiYWdlIGNvbGxlY3 Rpb24gYWxnb3JpdGhtcyB0bwo+
IHN1cHBvcnQgbW9yZSByZWFsLXRpbWUgdXNlLiAgQW5kIHRoZX JlIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBzb21lIHBh
cGVycwo+IHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBhYm91dCBtdWx0aXRocmVhZGVkIG dhcmJhZ2UgY29sbGVjdGlvbiAo
bGlrZSBbMF0pCj4KPiBUaG91Z2h0cz8KPgo+IEpvc2gKPgo+IF swXSBodHRwOi8vcG9ydGFsLmFj
bS5vcmcvY2l0YXRpb24uY2ZtP2lkPTI4Njg3OAoKV2F5IHRvIG RvIHBhcnRpYWwgdGltZS1saW1p
dGVkIEdDIHJ1bnMgd291bGQgYmUgbmljZSwgYnV0IG5vIGlkZW EgYWJvdXQKZmVhc2liaWxpdHku
IFJ1biBHQyBmb3IgMm1zLCB0aGVuIGRvIG1vcmUgc3R1ZmYsIG FuZCB3aGVuIGFsbG9jIGxpbWl0
IGhpdCwKcnVuIEdDIGZvciAybXMgYWdhaW4uIEEgc2luZ2xlID IwbXMgR0MgcnVuIGlzIGEgdmlz
aWJsZSBnbGl0Y2gsIGJ1dAp0d2VudHkgMm1zIHJ1bnMgc3ByZW FkIG92ZXIgdHdlbnR5IGZyYW1l
cyBpcyBwcmFjdGljYWxseSBpbnZpc2libGUuCg==


 
Reply With Quote
 
gabriele renzi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
Ilmari Heikkinen ha scritto:

>>Thoughts?
>>
>>Josh
>>
>>[0] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=286878

>
>
> Way to do partial time-limited GC runs would be nice, but no idea about
> feasibility. Run GC for 2ms, then do more stuff, and when alloc limit hit,
> run GC for 2ms again. A single 20ms GC run is a visible glitch, but
> twenty 2ms runs spread over twenty frames is practically invisible.


I think the easier way would be, again, to integrate Bohem's GC, which
claims incrementality, but matz tryed it many years ago and I recall he
was'nt satisfied (search ruby-talk for details). Maybe things are changed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: A couple quick questions about Thunderbird v3,0 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo Firefox 0 12-13-2009 12:55 AM
Couple quick questions from a Python Noob digitalsubjunctive@gmail.com Python 3 07-21-2005 11:15 PM
Any YARV pre-questions in RubyConf2004? SASADA Koichi Ruby 19 09-29-2004 09:08 AM
Couple of quick questions. Dan MCSA 3 01-10-2004 02:31 AM
A couple more quick questions... messages@home.com A+ Certification 5 08-27-2003 11:34 PM



Advertisments