It's easiest to check out the suite from git: git clone https://github.com/attractivechaos/plb.git $ time d8 sudoku_v2.js < sudoku.txt > /dev/null gc scavenge 1886560 0.707637 real 0m0.311s user 0m0.303s sys 0m0.008s $ time js -m -a sudoku_v2.js < sudoku.txt > /dev/null real 0m3.603s user 0m3.587s sys 0m0.010s $ time js -j sudoku_v2.js < sudoku.txt > /dev/null real 0m3.597s user 0m3.589s sys 0m0.006s host-5-88:sudoku dmandelin$ time js sudoku_v2.js < sudoku.txt > /dev/null real 0m3.607s user 0m3.595s sys 0m0.006s It's as if the code is not running in the jits.
Summary: SpiderMonkey is ~10x slower than v8 on sudoku benchmark → SpiderMonkey is ~10x slower than v8 on plb sudoku benchmark
Cool website. For me the interpreter is much slower here, 5.2s vs. 0.6 with -m -a, 32-bit OS X TM shell.
(In reply to comment #1) > Cool website. For me the interpreter is much slower here, 5.2s vs. 0.6 with > -m -a, 32-bit OS X TM shell. I get similar results on my Windows machine. Something must be wrong with my build on Mac, or it's not running the right flags, or something.
Bleh, I had the wrong incantation for a 32-bit Mac build. This is what I get now: host-5-88:opt32 dmandelin$ time shell/js -m -a ~/sources/plb/sudoku/sudoku_v2.j s < ~/sources/plb/sudoku/sudoku.txt > /dev/null real 0m0.526s user 0m0.518s sys 0m0.006s host-5-88:opt32 dmandelin$ time shell/js -j ~/sources/plb/sudoku/sudoku_v2.js < ~/sources/plb/sudoku/sudoku.txt > /dev/null real 0m0.468s user 0m0.459s sys 0m0.007s Not quite such a big deal now.
Summary: SpiderMonkey is ~10x slower than v8 on plb sudoku benchmark → SpiderMonkey is 1.5-1.7x slower than v8 on plb sudoku benchmark
OK, so on my machine I see these numbers on jaegermonkey: interp: 2.853u 0.011s 0:02.86 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w -j -m -p -a: 0.558u 0.007s 0:00.56 98.2% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w -m: 0.593u 0.006s 0:00.60 98.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w -m -n: 0.318u 0.008s 0:00.32 96.8% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w d8: 0.434u 0.004s 0:00.44 97.7% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w So bhackett wins again. ;)
The website shows SM to be 4.8x slower than V8 (18.1 vs 3.7). Anybody knows how he runs the tests?
OK, I can more or less reproduce the 4.8x on the website. The author apparently cats together 50 copies of sudoku.txt as the input. Somehow the larger input gives a bigger advantage to V8. I would guess either amortization of compile time, or better GC behavior. It would be great to get a profiler run on this.
Summary: SpiderMonkey is 1.5-1.7x slower than v8 on plb sudoku benchmark → SpiderMonkey is 4.5x slower than v8 on plb sudoku benchmark
Happy to do that, if you can point me to the right URL.
(In reply to comment #7) > Happy to do that, if you can point me to the right URL. There's a browser version here: http://attractivechaos.github.com/plb/kudoku.html Btw, I meant sfink's JS profiler--Shark mostly just says "lots of time in jitcode". It does say 30% of time in array_(g|s)etProperty, which might mean some sparse arrays.
Ah. If you've run Shark already, not much I can help with here.... Pointer to sphink's thing?
It's bug 642054, with a simple visualization available at http://people.mozilla.org/~sfink/v8/ui.html I intended to do this earlier, but I managed to break it while fixing it up for use with the browser instead of just the JS shell, and then I got distracted by something that I wanted to have done by next Tuesday that still isn't quite working. I suppose I should just back up my patch queue to the last working version. I'll take a swing at it now.
For what it's worth: http://people.mozilla.org/~sfink/v8/ui.html#?test=sudoku It shows 77% of the time in sd_solve and 21% in sd_update. It claims all time is spent in the first line of each script, which is definitely a bug (probably a dumb format change bug or something.) 19% of the sd_solve time is in stub calls; I can resolve those to actual routines with some hand-munging, but it's not going to tell you anything Shark wouldn't, and the kids are awake now so I'll have to do that later. When I get it to give me proper per-line info again, it may be more revealing.
What's confusing here is that there's a sudoku_v1.js and sudoku_v2.js in the GitHub repo. The browser version seems to use v1 and I can only reproduce the ~5 times slower with v1, using dmandelin's instructions in comment 6. This commit  indicates v1 was modified and the old v1 was renamed to v2, meaning v1 is the most recent version. For v1, 50x20 sudoku's: d8 : 4.1 js -m -j -p : 22.2 js -m -n : 38.8 For v2: d8 : 14.9 js -m -j -p : 32.9 js -m -n : 18.3 v1 modified sd_update and added some ELEMINC, DECELEM etc ops to sd_update. What happens if we replace the ELEMINC and friends in sd_update with equivalent +=, -= ops? (I verified that these modifications don't break the algorithm by comparing the output) d8 : 4.5 js -m -j -p : 9.5 js -m -n : 4.3 Suddenly JM+TI is 9x faster, because JM currently always calls a stub for INCELEM etc. The only way to beat V8 here is by making INCELEM fast. This is especially bad because it's reasonable to assume that "var y = --arr[x]" is at least as fast as "arr[x] -= 1; var y = arr[x]". This is true for V8 (the modified version is a bit slower) but not for SM/JM. And in case anybody wonders why -m -n is slower than -m -j -p on the unmodified v1, the INCELEM stubs call array_setProperty which calls TypeObject::addPropertyType where we spent quite some time according to the profile, but inlining INCELEM in JM should get rid of that. 1. https://github.com/attractivechaos/plb/commit/fac81548e34cf6f45161be9639a74d56f80f86a0
Added sudoku.txt as an array and a for-loop to solve all sudoku's 50 times, so that you can just run the script like this: ./js sudoku_v1.js This version does *not* have my INCELEM modifications.
Hmm. The INCELEM/DECELEM thing sounds bad; those are commonly used on the web. Does JM do stub calls for ELEMINC as well? Or just INCELEM?
Also, does bug 647624 fix this? If so, could we land the patch there that got review 3 months ago?
(In reply to comment #14) > Does JM do stub calls for ELEMINC as well? Or just INCELEM? Stub calls for all four, ELEMINC, INCELEM, ELEMDEC, DECELEM...
> Stub calls for all four, ELEMINC, INCELEM, ELEMDEC, DECELEM... Huh. It's weird that dvander says these are rare on the web; I've certainly seen them a whole bunch in web script....
I probably meant "rare" compared to, say, ADD or LAMBDA, rather than not existing at all. I don't have time to buddy bug 647624 into the tree right now, but it will essentially be an IonMonkey blocker someday. If anyone wants to take over that bug and get it in I'd be much appreciative!
(In reply to comment #18) > If anyone wants to take over that bug and get it in I'd be much appreciative! I can probably have a look next week if I have the time. What's needed to finish the patch, except rebasing and (perf) testing?
That's it, I think. It passed tests IIRC.
(In reply to comment #12) > For v1, 50x20 sudoku's: > > d8 : 4.1 > js -m -j -p : 22.2 > js -m -n : 38.8 Latest JM tip, which has the patch for bug 647624: js -m -n : 3.9 d8 : 4.0 js -m : 8.7 js -m -j -p : 10.3 Nice work!
So does something need to be done on this bug still?
On the "Hardest 20x50" at http://attractivechaos.github.io/plb/kudoku.html I get 3.276s on Nightly and 2.942s on Chrome 30
Close enough, I reckon.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.