Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[nate]

Awesome. Also I didn’t know you could include ‘#%place like that.

Nate

> On Nov 25, 2020, at 9:41 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt  wrote:
> 
> Here's an in-progress PR: https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/3518
> 
> With this, your simple test takes about 150ms with `racket/place` and
> 50ms with `racket/place/dynamic`. For comparison, just having the
> submodule depend on `racket/base` gives a time of about 42 ms, and
> just `racket/kernel` is about 12ms.
> 
> Sam
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> th-place is used if places are not enabled when Racket is built (this is the 
>> default on some platforms).
>> 
>> I'm making progress on shrinking this, hopefully I'll have a patch done soon.
>> 
>> One thing to note is that '#%place can be required directly and will have 
>> almost no start-up cost.
>> 
>> Sam
>> 
>> Sam
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 1:58 PM Nathaniel W Griswold  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I noticed i am using the pl- functions so I replaced th-place.rkt with a 
>>> stub and saw more time shaved off, this time about 15ms for each 
>>> racket/place import.
>>> 
>>> Under what circumstances is th-place used instead of '#%place and needed?
>>> 
>>> Nate
>>> 
 On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:31 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
 wrote:
>>> 
>>> I seem to remember there being some global namespace. Since every 
>>> reasonable place will require racket/place, might it be possible to make 
>>> the racket/place import a special case and stick it in the global space, to 
>>> improve place setup time? It would be nice to be able to only set up 
>>> racket/place one time instead of once for each place.
>>> 
>>> Nate
>>> 
 On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
 wrote:
>>> 
>>> Actually, it cuts about 20-25ms off of a single import. Down from 185ms to 
>>> 165ms for me. 50ms off my startup time of my app on average, since i 
>>> basically stack the import twice and sync on the place being ready.
>>> 
>>> Might be worth including and seeing if there’s anything else that can be 
>>> shaved off.
>>> 
>>> Nate
>>> 
 On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
 wrote:
>>> 
>>> I checked into it a bit.
>>> 
>>> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by 
>>> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why 
>>> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.
>>> 
>>> racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed.
>>> 
>>> I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any 
>>> performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> Nate
>>> 
 On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler  
 wrote:
>>> 
>>> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in 
>>> racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and 
>>> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I 
>>> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
>>> 
>>> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to 
>>> rewrite out.
>>> 
>>>(match name
>>>  [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>>>  [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>>>  [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s 
>>> ,submod-name)])
>>> 
>>> Robby
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold  
>>> wrote:
 
 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  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 
>> 
>> 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 
>>> wrote:
 
 Oops, i am having some issues with not getting to the list from my 
 other
>>> email 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Sam Tobin-Hochstadt]

Here's an in-progress PR: https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/3518

With this, your simple test takes about 150ms with `racket/place` and
50ms with `racket/place/dynamic`. For comparison, just having the
submodule depend on `racket/base` gives a time of about 42 ms, and
just `racket/kernel` is about 12ms.

Sam

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
 wrote:
>
> th-place is used if places are not enabled when Racket is built (this is the 
> default on some platforms).
>
> I'm making progress on shrinking this, hopefully I'll have a patch done soon.
>
> One thing to note is that '#%place can be required directly and will have 
> almost no start-up cost.
>
> Sam
>
> Sam
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 1:58 PM Nathaniel W Griswold  
> wrote:
>>
>> I noticed i am using the pl- functions so I replaced th-place.rkt with a 
>> stub and saw more time shaved off, this time about 15ms for each 
>> racket/place import.
>>
>> Under what circumstances is th-place used instead of '#%place and needed?
>>
>> Nate
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:31 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
>> wrote:
>>
>> I seem to remember there being some global namespace. Since every reasonable 
>> place will require racket/place, might it be possible to make the 
>> racket/place import a special case and stick it in the global space, to 
>> improve place setup time? It would be nice to be able to only set up 
>> racket/place one time instead of once for each place.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, it cuts about 20-25ms off of a single import. Down from 185ms to 
>> 165ms for me. 50ms off my startup time of my app on average, since i 
>> basically stack the import twice and sync on the place being ready.
>>
>> Might be worth including and seeing if there’s anything else that can be 
>> shaved off.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
>> wrote:
>>
>> I checked into it a bit.
>>
>> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by 
>> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why 
>> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.
>>
>> racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed.
>>
>> I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any 
>> performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler  wrote:
>>
>> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in 
>> racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and 
>> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I 
>> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
>>
>> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to 
>> rewrite out.
>>
>> (match name
>>   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>>   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>>   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s 
>> ,submod-name)])
>>
>> Robby
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold  wrote:
>>>
>>> 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  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 
 > 
 > 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 
 > > 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.
 > > >
 > > > 

Re: [SPAM] Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Robby Findler]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:09 PM Nathaniel W Griswold 
wrote:

> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by
> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why
> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.
>
>
Ah, sorry: DrRacket was merely saying that the exports of those modules
weren't used by the racket/place module.

Robby

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOOkdBjyxjUOnUE6_CmsuioHfCx7OJn5Bh6dqS4uQm78yA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Sam Tobin-Hochstadt]

th-place is used if places are not enabled when Racket is built (this is
the default on some platforms).

I'm making progress on shrinking this, hopefully I'll have a patch done
soon.

One thing to note is that '#%place can be required directly and will have
almost no start-up cost.

Sam

Sam

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 1:58 PM Nathaniel W Griswold 
wrote:

> I noticed i am using the pl- functions so I replaced th-place.rkt with a
> stub and saw more time shaved off, this time about 15ms for each
> racket/place import.
>
> Under what circumstances is th-place used instead of '#%place and needed?
>
> Nate
>
> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:31 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold 
> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember there being some global namespace. Since every
> reasonable place will require racket/place, might it be possible to make
> the racket/place import a special case and stick it in the global space, to
> improve place setup time? It would be nice to be able to only set up
> racket/place one time instead of once for each place.
>
> Nate
>
> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold 
> wrote:
>
> Actually, it cuts about 20-25ms off of a single import. Down from 185ms to
> 165ms for me. 50ms off my startup time of my app on average, since i
> basically stack the import twice and sync on the place being ready.
>
> Might be worth including and seeing if there’s anything else that can be
> shaved off.
>
> Nate
>
> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold 
> wrote:
>
> I checked into it a bit.
>
> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by
> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why
> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.
>
> racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed.
>
> I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any
> performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere.
>
> Nate
>
> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler 
> wrote:
>
> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires
> in racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and
> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I
> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
>
> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to
> rewrite out.
>
> (match name
>   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s
> ,submod-name)])
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold 
> wrote:
>
>> 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  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 <
>>> sa...@cs.indiana.edu>
>>> > 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 <
>>> nategrisw...@gmail.com>
>>> > > 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
>>> > >  wrote:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Nathaniel W Griswold]

I noticed i am using the pl- functions so I replaced th-place.rkt with a stub 
and saw more time shaved off, this time about 15ms for each racket/place import.

Under what circumstances is th-place used instead of '#%place and needed?

Nate

> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:31 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
> wrote:
> 
> I seem to remember there being some global namespace. Since every reasonable 
> place will require racket/place, might it be possible to make the 
> racket/place import a special case and stick it in the global space, to 
> improve place setup time? It would be nice to be able to only set up 
> racket/place one time instead of once for each place.
> 
> Nate
> 
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold > > wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, it cuts about 20-25ms off of a single import. Down from 185ms to 
>> 165ms for me. 50ms off my startup time of my app on average, since i 
>> basically stack the import twice and sync on the place being ready.
>> 
>> Might be worth including and seeing if there’s anything else that can be 
>> shaved off.
>> 
>> Nate
>> 
>>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I checked into it a bit.
>>> 
>>> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by 
>>> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why 
>>> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.
>>> 
>>> racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed.
>>> 
>>> I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any 
>>> performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> Nate
>>> 
 On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler >>> > wrote:
 
 DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires 
 in racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, 
 and racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part 
 (and I don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
 
 Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to 
 rewrite out.
 
 (match name
   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s 
 ,submod-name)])
 
 Robby
 
 
 On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold >>> > wrote:
 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 >>> > 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 
 > mailto:sa...@cs.indiana.edu>>
 > 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 >>> > > >
 > > 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, 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Nathaniel W Griswold]

I seem to remember there being some global namespace. Since every reasonable 
place will require racket/place, might it be possible to make the racket/place 
import a special case and stick it in the global space, to improve place setup 
time? It would be nice to be able to only set up racket/place one time instead 
of once for each place.

Nate

> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
> wrote:
> 
> Actually, it cuts about 20-25ms off of a single import. Down from 185ms to 
> 165ms for me. 50ms off my startup time of my app on average, since i 
> basically stack the import twice and sync on the place being ready.
> 
> Might be worth including and seeing if there’s anything else that can be 
> shaved off.
> 
> Nate
> 
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold > > wrote:
>> 
>> I checked into it a bit.
>> 
>> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by 
>> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why 
>> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.
>> 
>> racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed.
>> 
>> I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any 
>> performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere.
>> 
>> Nate
>> 
>>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in 
>>> racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and 
>>> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I 
>>> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
>>> 
>>> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to 
>>> rewrite out.
>>> 
>>> (match name
>>>   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>>>   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>>>   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s 
>>> ,submod-name)])
>>> 
>>> Robby
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold >> > wrote:
>>> 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 >> > 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 >> > >
>>> > 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 >> > > >
>>> > > 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
>>> > > mailto:nate@manicmind.earth>> 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

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Nathaniel W Griswold]

Actually, it cuts about 20-25ms off of a single import. Down from 185ms to 
165ms for me. 50ms off my startup time of my app on average, since i basically 
stack the import twice and sync on the place being ready.

Might be worth including and seeing if there’s anything else that can be shaved 
off.

Nate

> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold  
> wrote:
> 
> I checked into it a bit.
> 
> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by 
> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why 
> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.
> 
> racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed.
> 
> I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any 
> performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere.
> 
> Nate
> 
>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler > > wrote:
>> 
>> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in 
>> racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and 
>> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I 
>> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
>> 
>> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to 
>> rewrite out.
>> 
>> (match name
>>   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>>   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>>   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s 
>> ,submod-name)])
>> 
>> Robby
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold > > wrote:
>> 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 > > 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 > > >
>> > 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 > > > >
>> > > 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
>> > > mailto:nate@manicmind.earth>> 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 > > > >> > 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))
>> 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Nathaniel W Griswold]

I checked into it a bit.

racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by 
“private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why 
DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed.

racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed.

I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any 
performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere.

Nate

> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler  wrote:
> 
> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in 
> racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and 
> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I 
> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
> 
> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to 
> rewrite out.
> 
> (match name
>   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s 
> ,submod-name)])
> 
> Robby
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold  > wrote:
> 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  > 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  > >
> > 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  > > >
> > > 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
> > >  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  > > >> > 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 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Robby Findler]

I didn't check to see if removing those has a significant performance
effect, but the remaining requires seem pretty minimal.

Robby


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:26 AM 'Nathaniel W Griswold' via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Cool. If this is indeed the case it might be nice for someone (maybe me)
> to cut it down, since any nontrivial place will of course require
> racket/place and that is kind of a long time.
>
> Nate
>
> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler 
> wrote:
>
> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires
> in racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and
> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I
> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
>
> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to
> rewrite out.
>
> (match name
>   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s
> ,submod-name)])
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold 
> wrote:
>
>> 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  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 <
>>> sa...@cs.indiana.edu>
>>> > 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 <
>>> nategrisw...@gmail.com>
>>> > > 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
>>> > >  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 
>>> 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 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

['Nathaniel W Griswold' via Racket Users]

Cool. If this is indeed the case it might be nice for someone (maybe me) to cut 
it down, since any nontrivial place will of course require racket/place and 
that is kind of a long time.

Nate

> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler  wrote:
> 
> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in 
> racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and 
> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I 
> don't see why those would be needed for their effects).
> 
> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to 
> rewrite out.
> 
> (match name
>   [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
>   [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
>   [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s 
> ,submod-name)])
> 
> Robby
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold  > wrote:
> 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  > 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  > >
> > 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  > > >
> > > 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
> > >  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  > > >> > 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 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Robby Findler]

DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in
racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and
racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I
don't see why those would be needed for their effects).

Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to
rewrite out.

(match name
  [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)]
  [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)]
  [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s
,submod-name)])

Robby


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold 
wrote:

> 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  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 <
>> sa...@cs.indiana.edu>
>> > 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 > >
>> > > 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
>> > >  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 
>> 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
>> > > >> 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Nate Griswold]

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  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 <
> sa...@cs.indiana.edu>
> > 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 
> > > 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
> > >  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 
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > >> 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 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Matthew Flatt]

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 
> 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 
> > 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
> >  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  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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > >> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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" 

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Nate Griswold]

Awesome, thanks!

Nate


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:44 AM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt 
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 
> 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
>  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  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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqtJrem4j%3DUi3fbrduoahsXCNNA2JPuB0Tt9dissiu5KA%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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqVgEBvrRzjU7%3DX_h3Wy_YUH11G6CX5%2BKjSct26pi3oEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Sam Tobin-Hochstadt]

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  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  
> 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  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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqtJrem4j%3DUi3fbrduoahsXCNNA2JPuB0Tt9dissiu5KA%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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2BY%2BEdpHVg8-AR4SHrLwNF2uZ6nBNpaCTwDx7NaFWpDprw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

['Nathaniel W Griswold' via Racket Users]

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  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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/DCF3799A-4064-4B2C-B0FC-5E76D2B78D4A%40manicmind.earth.

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Nate Griswold]

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 
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  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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqtJrem4j%3DUi3fbrduoahsXCNNA2JPuB0Tt9dissiu5KA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] snappier place startup time

[Matthew Flatt]

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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20201124071656.149%40sirmail.smtps.cs.utah.edu.