Sorry to bump up this thread after all of this time, but I was curious if there were any issues with getting this merged.
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 11:51:43 AM UTC+9, Leif Theden wrote: > > 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]> >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
