8.2 has much more aggressive specialization of polymorphic functions at their use sites, is it possible that the build performance would improve and the runtime improvements would remain, if you experimentally removed all the inline pragmas? On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs < ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:

Great. Could you put all this into a Trac ticket?

Thanks!

Simon

*From:* Alberto Valverde [mailto:alberto@toscat.net] *Sent:* 08 June 2017 13:57 *To:* Simon Peyton Jones *Cc:* GHC users *Subject:* Re: 8.2.1-rc2 upgrade report

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the pointer. I re-did both builds with -dshow-passes and made a small script to plot the results of the lines which summarize the elapsed time and allocated memory per phase and module. I've uploaded the raw logs, a plot of the results and the script I wrote to generate it to https://gist.githubusercontent.com/albertov/145ac5c01bfbadc5c9ff55e9c5c2e5 0e https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.githubusercontent.com%2Falbertov%2F145ac5c01bfbadc5c9ff55e9c5c2e50e&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C3fffbe72f46e458381e308d4ae6de2bc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636325234362588423&sdata=OK11SsW2MmKkNyNHQTzLTxuR8zzEDwg5gddkxPfLiVk%3D&reserved=0 .

The plotted results live here https://gist.githubusercontent.com/albertov/ 145ac5c01bfbadc5c9ff55e9c5c2e50e/raw/8996644707fc5c18c1d42ad43ee31b 1817509384/bench.png https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.githubusercontent.com%2Falbertov%2F145ac5c01bfbadc5c9ff55e9c5c2e50e%2Fraw%2F8996644707fc5c18c1d42ad43ee31b1817509384%2Fbench.png&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C3fffbe72f46e458381e308d4ae6de2bc%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636325234362588423&sdata=LZR2%2Fdp9s%2FI9xmSkAiqZuCS9PdEZ1DxZWjp8SGt8TRc%3D&reserved=0

Apparently, the biggest slowdown in respect to 8.0.2 seems to occur in the SpecConstr and Simplifier passes in the Propag (where the "main" function is) and the Sigym4.Propag.Engine (where the main algorithm lives) modules.

Any other tests that would be helpful for me to run? I'm not sure where to start to create a reproducible case but I'll see if I can come up with something soon...

Alberto

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

Thanks for the report.

Going from 67G to 56G allocation is a very worthwhile improvement in runtime! Hurrah.

However, trebling compile time is very bad. It is (I think) far from typical: generally 8.2 is *faster* at compiling than 8.0 so you must be hitting something weird. Anything you can do to make a reproducible case would be helpful. -dshow-passes shows the size of each intermediate form, which at least sometimes shows where the big changes are.

Simon

*From:* Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users- bounces@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Alberto Valverde *Sent:* 06 June 2017 12:39 *To:* GHC users *Subject:* 8.2.1-rc2 upgrade report

Hi,

I've finally managed to upgrade all the dependencies of the proprietary app I mentioned some days ago in this list and there are good and bad differences I've noticed between 8.0.2 that I'd like to share.

The bad

-----------

* An optimized cold build (-O2) is about 3 times slower (~53s vs. ~2m55s) and consumes more memory (~2Gb vs. ~7Gb) at it's peak.

The good

-------------

* An un-optimized cold build (-O0) takes about the same time (~21s, phew! :) It's maybe even slightly faster with 8.2 (too few and badly taken measurements to really know, though)

* The optimized executable is slightly faster and allocates less memory. For this app it makes up for the performance regression of the optimized build (which is almost always done by CI), IMHO.

I did only a couple of runs and only wrote down [1] the last run results (which were similar to the previous results) so take these observations with a grain of salt (except maybe the optimized build slowdown, which doesn't have much margin for variance to be skewing the results). I also measured the peak memory usage by observing "top".

In case gives a clue: The app is a multi-threaded 2D spread simulator which deals with many mmapped Storable mutable vectors and has been pretty optimized for countless hours (I mean by this that it has (too) many INLINE pragmas. Mostly on polymorphic functions to aid in their specialization). I think some of this information can be deduced from the results I'm linking at the footer. I believe the INLINEs are playing a big part of the slowdown since the slowest modules to compile are the "Main" ones which put everything together, along with the typical lens-th-heavy "Types" ones.

I'd like to help by producing a reproducible and isolated benchmark or a better analysis or ... so someone more knowledgeable than me on GHC internals can someday hopefully attack the regression. Any pointers on what would help and where can I learn to do it?

Thanks!

[1] https://gist.github.com/albertov/46fbb13d940f67a569f9a25c1cb8154c https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.github.com%2Falbertov%2F46fbb13d940f67a569f9a25c1cb8154c&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cce8170b01de84bacdab308d4acd0aef3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636323459695695689&sdata=iRWChz2fzNFuXBAhiYABO5OepSXYBLxvvIQ8CAiABYg%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs