Great suggestion, Petr. I made the changes that you suggested, and got a 8-10% speed increase for my synthetic benchmarks. Salvakiya, I'm not sure why a heap based scheduler was used in the past. Perhaps the benefit was never thought to be good enough to justify rewriting the existing scheduler. This change that I'm proposing is just an incremental boost, not really one that is drastic. A 40% increase in performance in the scheduler doesn't mean much if the scheduler is 10% of the overall CPU use. Anyway, I'll need to do more benchmarks to see how it goes with real-world use.
So... don't get your hopes up too much about fixing performance issues. Pyglet's bottlenecks are still graphics related, and will take care to make a quick program. I've updated my branch. On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 4:00:53 AM UTC-5, Petr Viktorin wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Leif Theden <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Greetings! In response to a conversation in another thread, I've put > > together some changes to the pyglet Clock that offer some performance > > benefits between 25% - 80% during use based on my benchmarks. This > clock > > doesn't change the API or behavior of the Clock and is a 'drop in > > replacement'. > > > [...] > > > > The only drawback from this heap clock is that 'soft scheduling' is > > impacted. By my benchmarks, it typically executes at the same speed or > > slower as the sorted-list Clock (the one in use now). Soft-scheduling > > requires a sorted list of events to correctly find a free spot in the > > schedule so that several events do not overlap and create usage spikes, > so > > the heap-clock has to create a sorted copy of the event queue. Perhaps > > another mechanism for soft scheduling can be used, however, I have not > > investigated alternative methods. > > Hello, > I haven't studied the code in detail, but I'd like to point out that: > 1. Every sorted list is also a heap [0] > 2. Python's sorting algorithm is very good at lists that are "almost" > sorted (i.e. a few elements/subsequences out of place) [1] > > So, for soft scheduling you might want to sort the list, insert the > event, and then leave the list sorted. This would make the next soft > schedule faster, as long as intervening heapq operations don't shuffle > the list *completely*. > > I think it'd be worth exploring but haven't tested/benchmarked it myself. > > > [0] https://docs.python.org/3/library/heapq.html : "heap.sort() > maintains the heap invariant!" > [1] https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/3.5/Objects/listsort.txt : > "3sort", "%sort" > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
