Changeset 3ca540f for doc/proposals/concurrency/text/results.tex

Timestamp:

Dec 1, 2017, 2:55:41 PM (6 years ago)

Author:

Rob Schluntz <rschlunt@…>

Branches:

ADT, aaron-thesis, arm-eh, ast-experimental, cleanup-dtors, deferred_resn, demangler, enum, forall-pointer-decay, jacob/cs343-translation, jenkins-sandbox, master, new-ast, new-ast-unique-expr, new-env, no_list, persistent-indexer, pthread-emulation, qualifiedEnum, resolv-new, with_gc

Children:

a40d503

Parents:

882ad37 (diff), 5da9d6a (diff)
Note: this is a merge changeset, the changes displayed below correspond to the merge itself.
Use the (diff) links above to see all the changes relative to each parent.

Message:

Merge branch 'master' into with-statement

File:

• doc/proposals/concurrency/text/results.tex (modified) (8 diffs)

doc/proposals/concurrency/text/results.tex

@@ -1 +1 @@
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
-\chapter{Performance results} \label{results}
+\chapter{Performance Results} \label{results}
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
-\section{Machine setup}
-Table \ref{tab:machine} shows the characteristics of the machine used to run the benchmarks. All tests where made on this machine.
+\section{Machine Setup}
+Table \ref{tab:machine} shows the characteristics of the machine used to run the benchmarks. All tests were made on this machine.
 \begin{table}[H]
 \begin{center}
@@ -37 +37 @@
 \end{table}
 
-\section{Micro benchmarks}
+\section{Micro Benchmarks}
 All benchmarks are run using the same harness to produce the results, seen as the \code{BENCH()} macro in the following examples. This macro uses the following logic to benchmark the code :
 \begin{pseudo}
@@ -46 +46 @@
         result = (after - before) / N;
 \end{pseudo}
-The method used to get time is \code{clock_gettime(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID);}. Each benchmark is using many iterations of a simple call to measure the cost of the call. The specific number of iteration depends on the specific benchmark.
-
-\subsection{Context-switching}
-The first interesting benchmark is to measure how long context-switches take. The simplest approach to do this is to yield on a thread, which executes a 2-step context switch. In order to make the comparison fair, coroutines also execute a 2-step context-switch (\gls{uthread} to \gls{kthread} then \gls{kthread} to \gls{uthread}), which is a resume/suspend cycle instead of a yield. Listing \ref{lst:ctx-switch} shows the code for coroutines and threads whith the results in table \ref{tab:ctx-switch}. All omitted tests are functionally identical to one of these tests.
+The method used to get time is \code{clock_gettime(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID);}. Each benchmark is using many iterations of a simple call to measure the cost of the call. The specific number of iterations depends on the specific benchmark.
+
+\subsection{Context-Switching}
+The first interesting benchmark is to measure how long context-switches take. The simplest approach to do this is to yield on a thread, which executes a 2-step context switch. In order to make the comparison fair, coroutines also execute a 2-step context-switch (\gls{uthread} to \gls{kthread} then \gls{kthread} to \gls{uthread}), which is a resume/suspend cycle instead of a yield. Listing \ref{lst:ctx-switch} shows the code for coroutines and threads with the results in table \ref{tab:ctx-switch}. All omitted tests are functionally identical to one of these tests.
 \begin{figure}
 \begin{multicols}{2}
@@ -114 +114 @@
 \end{table}
 
-\subsection{Mutual-exclusion}
-The next interesting benchmark is to measure the overhead to enter/leave a critical-section. For monitors, the simplest approach is to measure how long it takes to enter and leave a monitor routine. Listing \ref{lst:mutex} shows the code for \CFA. To put the results in context, the cost of entering a non-inline function and the cost of acquiring and releasing a pthread mutex lock are also measured. The results can be shown in table \ref{tab:mutex}.
+\subsection{Mutual-Exclusion}
+The next interesting benchmark is to measure the overhead to enter/leave a critical-section. For monitors, the simplest approach is to measure how long it takes to enter and leave a monitor routine. Listing \ref{lst:mutex} shows the code for \CFA. To put the results in context, the cost of entering a non-inline function and the cost of acquiring and releasing a pthread mutex lock is also measured. The results can be shown in table \ref{tab:mutex}.
 
 \begin{figure}
@@ -156 +156 @@
 \end{table}
 
-\subsection{Internal scheduling}
+\subsection{Internal Scheduling}
 The internal-scheduling benchmark measures the cost of waiting on and signalling a condition variable. Listing \ref{lst:int-sched} shows the code for \CFA, with results table \ref{tab:int-sched}. As with all other benchmarks, all omitted tests are functionally identical to one of these tests.
 
@@ -211 +211 @@
 \end{table}
 
-\subsection{External scheduling}
+\subsection{External Scheduling}
 The Internal scheduling benchmark measures the cost of the \code{waitfor} statement (\code{_Accept} in \uC). Listing \ref{lst:ext-sched} shows the code for \CFA, with results in table \ref{tab:ext-sched}. As with all other benchmarks, all omitted tests are functionally identical to one of these tests.
 
@@ -264 +264 @@
 \end{table}
 
-\subsection{Object creation}
-Finally, the last benchmark measurs the cost of creation for concurrent objects. Listing \ref{lst:creation} shows the code for pthreads and \CFA threads, with results shown in table \ref{tab:creation}. As with all other benchmarks, all omitted tests are functionally identical to one of these tests. The only note here is that the call-stacks of \CFA coroutines are lazily created, therefore without priming the coroutine, the creation cost is very low.
+\subsection{Object Creation}
+Finally, the last benchmark measures the cost of creation for concurrent objects. Listing \ref{lst:creation} shows the code for pthreads and \CFA threads, with results shown in table \ref{tab:creation}. As with all other benchmarks, all omitted tests are functionally identical to one of these tests. The only note here is that the call stacks of \CFA coroutines are lazily created, therefore without priming the coroutine, the creation cost is very low.
 
 \begin{figure}
@@ -327 +327 @@
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
-\caption{Creation comparison. All numbers are in nanoseconds(\si{\nano\second})}
+\caption{Creation comparison. All numbers are in nanoseconds(\si{\nano\second}).}
 \label{tab:creation}
 \end{table}