Hi Yusuke, I did not run benchmarks with CLoop recently, but that has been my observation on MIPS in the past as well, and I would therefore expect to see similar results on Armv7, so I think it would make sense to do that on these platforms too. Obviously, in all cases we would want to have a cmake option to compile with CLoop, as that can be useful for testing/diagnosing issues.
Best regards, Guillaume Quoting Yusuke Suzuki (2018-09-19 08:23:43) > Hi WebKittens! > > Recently, node-jsc is announced. When I read the documents of that project, > I found that they use LLInt ASM interpreter instead of CLoop in non-JIT > environment. > So I had one question in my mind: How fast the LLInt ASM interpreter when > comparing to CLoop? > > I've set up two builds. One is CLoop build (-DENABLE_JIT=OFF) and another is > JIT build JSC with `JSC_useJIT=false`. > And I've ran kraken benchmarks with these two builds in x64 Linux machine. The > results are the followings. > > Benchmark report for Kraken on sakura-trick. > > VMs tested: > "baseline" at /home/yusukesuzuki/dev/WebKit/WebKitBuild/nojit/Release/bin/jsc > "patched" at > /home/yusukesuzuki/dev/WebKit/WebKitBuild/nojit-llint/Release/bin/ > jsc > > Collected 10 samples per benchmark/VM, with 10 VM invocations per benchmark. > Emitted a call to gc() between sample > measurements. Used 1 benchmark iteration per VM invocation for warm-up. Used > the jsc-specific preciseTime() > function to get microsecond-level timing. Reporting benchmark execution times > with 95% confidence intervals in > milliseconds. > > baseline > patched > > ai-astar 3619.974+-57.095 ^ > 2014.835+-59.016 ^ definitely 1.7967x faster > audio-beat-detection 1762.085+-24.853 ^ > 1030.902+-19.743 ^ definitely 1.7093x faster > audio-dft 1822.426+-28.704 ^ > 909.262+-16.640 ^ definitely 2.0043x faster > audio-fft 1651.070+-9.994 ^ > 865.203+-7.912 ^ definitely 1.9083x faster > audio-oscillator 1853.697+-26.539 ^ > 992.406+-12.811 ^ definitely 1.8679x faster > imaging-darkroom 2118.737+-23.219 ^ > 1303.729+-8.071 ^ definitely 1.6251x faster > imaging-desaturate 3133.654+-28.545 ^ > 1759.738+-18.182 ^ definitely 1.7808x faster > imaging-gaussian-blur 16321.090+-154.893 ^ > 7228.017+-58.508 ^ definitely 2.2580x faster > json-parse-financial 57.256+-2.876 > 56.101+-4.265 might be 1.0206x faster > json-stringify-tinderbox 38.470+-2.788 ? > 38.771+-0.935 ? > stanford-crypto-aes 851.341+-7.738 ^ > 485.438+-13.904 ^ definitely 1.7538x faster > stanford-crypto-ccm 556.133+-6.606 ^ > 264.161+-3.970 ^ definitely 2.1053x faster > stanford-crypto-pbkdf2 1945.718+-15.968 ^ > 1075.013+-13.337 ^ definitely 1.8099x faster > stanford-crypto-sha256-iterative 623.203+-7.604 ^ > 349.782+-12.810 ^ definitely 1.7817x faster > > <arithmetic> 2596.775+-14.857 ^ > 1312.383+-8.840 ^ definitely 1.9787x faster > > Surprisingly, LLInt ASM interpreter is significantly faster than CLoop. I > expected it would be fast, but it would show around 10% performance win. > But the reality is that it is 2x faster. It is too much number to me to > consider enabling LLInt ASM interpreter for non-JIT build configuration. > As a bonus, LLInt ASM interpreter offers sampling profiler support even in > non-JIT environment. > > So my proposal is, how about enabling LLInt ASM interpreter in non-JIT > configuration environment in major architectures (x64 and ARM64)? > > Best regards, > Yusuke Suzuki > > : https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2018-September/030140.html _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev