Micro benchmarks for interpreter performance #119
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a few microbenchmarks to assess the performance of access operations to locals and trivial message sends.
These benchmarks are used to investigate the performance of the bytecode loops on different SOM interpreters.
By having the relevant operation under investigation repeated 30 explicitly in the body of the inlined while loop, I am relatively confident that the overall execution time of the benchmark should be dominated by exactly the bytecodes I am interested in.
Doing it only once, would result in more focus on the loop-related bytecodes, which was not the goal here.
@OctaveLarose, this may be interesting for you.