To elaborate: I ran this same experiment before. And I forgot to turn off the RegExp JIT and got results similar to what you got. Once I turned off the RegExp JIT, I saw no perf difference.
- Saam > On Sep 19, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Saam Barati <sbar...@apple.com> wrote: > > Did you turn off the RegExp JIT? > > - Saam > >> On Sep 18, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Yusuke Suzuki <yusukesuz...@slowstart.org> >> wrote: >> >> 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 >> firstname.lastname@example.org >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > _______________________________________________ > jsc-dev mailing list > jsc-...@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/jsc-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev