Hi Pierre, wow, those numbers are quite something! I suppose the C++ code could be optimized some more?
Do you plan to submit that soon? Would it make your story easier if I tried to push ahead with getting map-improvements merged? Also, would you maybe be interested in (co-?)writing a blog post for the PyPy blog?: https://morepypy.blogspot.com/ Cheers, Carl Friedrich On 1/25/21 8:44 PM, PIERRE AUGIER wrote:
Hi, I did some timing and energy consumption measurements with https://www.grid5000.fr/w/Energy_consumption_monitoring_tutorial I think the results tend to validate the approach used in the branch map-improvements (https://foss.heptapod.net/pypy/pypy/-/tree/branch/map-improvements). I attach one of the first figure including a run using an interpreter build with these changes (http://buildbot.pypy.org/nightly/map-improvements-3.7/pypy-c-jit-latest-linux64.tar.bz2). To be compared with https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paugier/nbabel/master/py/fig/fig_ecolo_impact_transonic.png taken from Zwart (2020). The implementation run with PyPy map-improvements is faster than the implementations using Numba, Fortran and C++ (with flags like -Ofast and -march=native activated!) ! It's a great result! Congratulation! For people interested, the code for the benchmarks and the measurement is here https://github.com/paugier/nbabel Pierre _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
_______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
