
Hello all.
Below is a (typically pointless) program, which is a small slice from
a larger one I'm profiling. I'm interested in getting the memory usage
as small as possible. The loop function (and its analogue in the real
program) contributes significantly to the allocation stats. AFAICT,
this would be mainly due to a closure built for the if-stmt.
The heap profile graph for this program shows an initial peak, and
then the graph is flat at 8Mbytes, which I think is the space
allocated to the two STArrays (2 arrays, 1 million chars each, 4 bytes
per char?). So it looks as though any allocation for the loop function
is GC'd very soon after it's allocated.
So my questions are:
- is my analysis of the space usage correct i.e. allocation in the
loop function is very short-lived and nothing to worry about?
- is there anything I can do to reduce the memory usage, or is it
already minimal, assuming that I'm happy with the size of the
STArrays? I realise I could use, say, PackedStrings, but the original
program works on lists of (Eq a); I've just chosen Chars for this
example so as to eliminate polymorphism from the profiling.
Notes:
- exporting only main makes a *big* difference to both space and time
usage, as does adding type signatures, to eliminate polymophism.
This is the only retainer set shown on the profiling graph:
SET 2 = {

Alistair Bayley
- is my analysis of the space usage correct i.e. allocation in the loop function is very short-lived and nothing to worry about?
IME, that would be the typical case.
- is there anything I can do to reduce the memory usage, or is it already minimal, assuming that I'm happy with the size of the STArrays? I realise I could use, say, PackedStrings
Slightly more general, you could use unboxed STUArrays. Still limited to a few built-in data types, and strict. E.g. a STUArray Int Word8 would only take up one byte per element, an STArray would store a (4 byte) pointer in each cell, pointing either to a Word8 value, or to a lazy thunk for computing it. At least as far as I understand it. (Manuel's paper notwithstanding, I still have the feeling that *UArrays should be *StrictArrays, and unboxing should be left as a compiler optimization (which then could apply to arbitrary element types, as long as they were strict.) -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Hello Alistair, Thursday, September 01, 2005, 6:36:09 PM, you wrote: AB> The heap profile graph for this program shows an initial peak, and AB> then the graph is flat at 8Mbytes, which I think is the space AB> allocated to the two STArrays (2 arrays, 1 million chars each, 4 bytes AB> per char?). So it looks as though any allocation for the loop function AB> is GC'd very soon after it's allocated. Char uses 4 bytes because it must hold any Unicode character, which is about 1 million :) use Word8 or CChar -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com
participants (3)
-
Alistair Bayley
-
Bulat Ziganshin
-
Ketil Malde