Oh, interesting. So compilation breaks the submodule out from the modules if possible?
So anyway, it sounds like breaking my modules out into separate files will improve performance in most cases. Unfortunately, i need racket/place in the module that is my startup bottleneck. If i modify the previous program to require racket/place and compile, it takes around 180ms. This is about what i can expect for a module that requires racket/place, then? Nate On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:48 AM Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to elaborate a little more: > > The difference is because the `test` submodule can be loaded > independently from the compiled form. Loading the submodule from source > requires loading the enclosing module, too (which depends on > `racket/place` and more). > > At Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:46:12 -0600, Nate Griswold wrote: > > Awesome, thanks! > > > > Nate > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:44 AM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Almost certainly the problem is expansion time. If I run that program > > > on my machine, it takes about 200 ms. But if I compile the file to zo > > > first with `raco make`, then it takes about 40 ms, basically identical > > > to `racket/base`. > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:39 AM Nate Griswold <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Oops, i am having some issues with not getting to the list from my > other > > > email address. Here is a reply i sent for the record. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Thank you, Matthew. > > > > > > > > The following code takes around 250ms on my machine. Any idea why? I > was > > > expecting it to be fast since the module is based on racket/base. > > > > > > > > #lang racket/base > > > > > > > > (require syntax/location) > > > > (require racket/place) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (module test racket/base > > > > (provide place-main) > > > > racket > > > > (define (place-main pch) > > > > (void))) > > > > > > > > (time (place-wait (dynamic-place (quote-module-path test) > 'place-main))) > > > > > > > > Nate > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:35 AM Nathaniel W Griswold > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, Matthew. > > > >> > > > >> The following code takes around 250ms on my machine. Any idea why? I > > > was expecting it to be fast since the module is based on racket/base. > > > >> > > > >> #lang racket/base > > > >> > > > >> (require syntax/location) > > > >> (require racket/place) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> (module test racket/base > > > >> (provide place-main) > > > >> racket > > > >> (define (place-main pch) > > > >> (void))) > > > >> > > > >> (time (place-wait (dynamic-place (quote-module-path test) > 'place-main))) > > > >> > > > >> Nate > > > >> > > > >> On Nov 24, 2020, at 8:16 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> The bottleneck for place startup is loading modules into the new > place, > > > >> including modules like `racket/base`. > > > >> > > > >> For example, > > > >> > > > >> (place-wait (dynamic-place 'racket 'void)) > > > >> > > > >> takes around 200ms on my machine, while > > > >> > > > >> (place-wait (dynamic-place 'racket/base 'void)) > > > >> > > > >> takes around 30ms and > > > >> > > > >> (place-wait (dynamic-place 'racket/kernel 'void)) > > > >> > > > >> takes around 10ms. > > > >> > > > >> It sounds like you're already aware that the complexity of the > module > > > >> loaded into a place matters, though. Beyond using a minimal set of > > > >> modules, I don't have any way to make place startup faster. > > > >> > > > >> Matthew > > > >> > > > >> At Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:04:19 -0600, Nate Griswold wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Is there any way to make places startup faster? Even if i do an > explicit > > > >> round trip using place-channel-put and place-channel-get on both > sides, > > > it > > > >> takes on the order of centiseconds for near empty places to start > up. > > > >> > > > >> My program requires the threads for a couple places to be set up > before > > > it > > > >> can operate, so this impacts my startup time by quite a bit. > > > >> > > > >> I have one place that has a very simple module and one place with a > more > > > >> complicated module. Is there some sequence that i should do things > in > > > for > > > >> the minimal startup time? It seems nothing i do really helps much. > > > >> > > > >> Nate > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > >> "Racket Users" group. > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send > > > an > > > >> email to [email protected]. > > > >> To view this discussion on the web visit > > > >> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPpvfCHHDDpfNmuTWQOyfYfEJ7v > > > >> m1c_dS7nj3FxaEFVm2Q%40mail.gmail.com. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups "Racket Users" group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send > > > an email to [email protected]. > > > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqtJrem4j%3DUi3fbrduoahsXC > > NNA2JPuB0Tt9dissiu5KA%40mail.gmail.com > > > . > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Racket Users" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqVgEBvrRzjU7%3DX_h3Wy_YUH > > 11G6CX5%2BKjSct26pi3oEA%40mail.gmail.com. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPoLD6N%3Dwep%2Bed5UGduA7mZ-SaYxFJ9VbqM78CppMG3m2w%40mail.gmail.com.
