On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Björn Steinbrink <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2013.07.05 02:02:59 +1000, Huon Wilson wrote: >> It looks like it's a lot more consistent than the original [IRFY], >> so it might actually be useful for identifying performance issues. >> (Speaking of performance issues, it takes extra::json ~1.8s to parse >> one of the 4 MB mem.json file; Python takes about 150ms; the `perf` >> output http://ix.io/6tV, a *lot* of time spent in allocations.) > > This is to a large part due to stack growth. A flamegraph that shows > this can be found here: > > http://i.minus.com/1373041398/43t7zpBOcgy3CeDpkSht0w/inUqVLvZGEUfx.svg > > Setting RUST_MIN_STACK to 8000000 cuts runtime in half for me. > > Björn
I find this is the case for many benchmarks. With segmented stacks, we're behind Java, and without them Rust can get close to C++. I think it should be part of the API in the task module, allowing segmented stacks to be used only when they make sense. The first task spawned by the scheduler can just have a large fixed stack. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
