On 06/01/2011 07:33 PM, Dima Tisnek wrote:
On 1 June 2011 05:14, Alex Şuhan<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello.
PyPy works great for our PHP JIT interpreter, with nice speedups for most of
the processing-intensive (with loops), shootout-ish scripts. However, I feel
that short scripts running often could benefit from tracing as well if we
make the interpreter „persistent” -- that is, keep all the scripts in
memory, create a jump (with a variable target) for dispatching the requested
script and a backward jump (to the fore-mentioned dispatch jump) at the end
of each script. This article:
http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2010/11/improving-memory-behaviour-to-make-self.html
refers to the loop_longevity JIT parameter, which suggests it's possible to
have alternative executions between different scripts and PyPy will simply
pick the appropriate trace as long as it's not too old.
Other than the obvious duct taping, are there any caveats to this solution?
--
asuhan
_______________________________________________
pypy-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
Would it be practical to add compiled traces to xcache cache? (or
.pyo/.pyj in python-speak)
d.
We're using APC, not XCache, but I see your point. Sounds good, but
it'll need a lot of tinkering with PyPy and the opcode cache
implementation. Until we get somewhere (the whole language at the very
least) we'll keep it as dumb as possible. Yeah, it'd be much better this
way than an ugly concatenation of all the scripts with jumps for
dispatching them, but we can't afford this luxury for the moment.
--
asuhan
_______________________________________________
pypy-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
