Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5760 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
37 crawler(s) on-line.
 12 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 1Mouse:  15 mins ago
 Lou:  17 mins ago
 outlawal2:  19 mins ago
 ErikBauer:  21 mins ago
 SinanG:  25 mins ago
 Arnie:  46 mins ago
 Everblue:  57 mins ago
 nikosidis:  1 hr ago
 thinkchip:  1 hr 7 mins ago
 CosmosUnivers:  1 hr 12 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4.x \ Workbench 4.x
      /  Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
ChrisH 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 20-Sep-2009 18:04:34
#61 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2005
Posts: 6673
From: Unknown

@AlexC Quote:
To be able to use sobj with the old update4 wb (51.x) you'd have to replace so many other components that in the end you'd end up with a 52.x setup.

I had been told that OS4.0 users could just use the latest SObj files (intended for OS4.1) without problems. Seems I was misinformed?

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
I can usually be found on www.Amigans.net (my favourite Amiga forum).
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
number6 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 20-Sep-2009 18:27:16
#62 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Posts: 10867
From: In the village

@ChrisH

In order to keep the results of the Bernd test in one place, please see my amended post #47, which now has the OS4 results included with those of OS3.

If you want me to run your other tests (see earlier post where I ran only Fab's tests), please let me know.

Oh...is it my imagination or am I clobbering Peg2 G4 and XE G4 results? Heh.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 20-Sep-2009 at 06:28 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Seiya 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 0:17:14
#63 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Aug-2006
Posts: 1416
From: Italia

on WinUAE Amikit (amd64 5200x2)

membench_68k:

1000 = 280001 us
2000 = 599999 us
10000 = 2840000 us




Last edited by Seiya on 21-Sep-2009 at 12:18 AM.

_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
KimmoK 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 7:32:06
#64 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5188
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

@Fab

Interesting indeed !!!

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
abalaban 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 10:11:33
#65 ]
Super Member
Joined: 1-Oct-2004
Posts: 1105
From: France

@Thread

I just thought about something, can't test myself right now, but is there anyone to test replacing the

AllocVec/FreeVec
by
AllocSysOject(ASOT_ITEMPOOL,ASOITEM_ItemSize,sizes[j],ASOITEM_MFlags,MEMF_PUBLIC,TAG_END);
FreeSysObject(ASOT_ITEMPOOL,ptr[j])
And see if it makes any differences ?

_________________
AOS 4.1 : I dream it, Hyperion did it !
Now dreaming AOS 4.2...
Thank you to all devs involved for this great job !

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
tboeckel 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 11:56:57
#66 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 7-Oct-2004
Posts: 274
From: Rehmerloh, Germany

@abalaban

Where is the connection between a sufficiently large allocation and the creation of an item pool for fixed sized items? This is like comparing AllocVec() to CreatePool(). They simply have nothing in common.

_________________
Why stop it now, just when I am hating it?

Thore B÷ckelmann

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
abalaban 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 13:33:16
#67 ]
Super Member
Joined: 1-Oct-2004
Posts: 1105
From: France

@tboeckel

you are right, I don't know why I had the impression ASOT_ITEMPOOL was allocating an item from a system dynamically created pool. rereading the autodoc it's clearly written that in fact it's allocating a specialized memory pool for a given object size. I was a bit tired, sorry for disturbing the discussion
I'm so surprised by such a bad performance (using OS4.1 daily here I never noticed such slowness) that I'm desperately trying to find an explication/solution where it would give better figures...

_________________
AOS 4.1 : I dream it, Hyperion did it !
Now dreaming AOS 4.2...
Thank you to all devs involved for this great job !

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wawa 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 14:39:27
#68 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2008
Posts: 6259
From: Unknown

i just tried chrish compile of bernds 68k benchmark on an regular a4k cs060ppc
(without tlsf) but the results are confusing me a little:

18.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 1000
Elapsed time: 995383 Ás = 995 ms
Average time: 47 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)

and then again:

18.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 1000
Elapsed time: 2474416 Ás = 2474 ms
Average time: 117 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)


18.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 2000
Elapsed time: 5233329 Ás = 5233 ms
Average time: 124 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)

18.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 10000
Elapsed time: 25325698 Ás = 25325 ms
Average time: 120 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)


Last edited by wawa on 21-Sep-2009 at 02:48 PM.
Last edited by wawa on 21-Sep-2009 at 02:48 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
thinkchip 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 14:58:51
#69 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Mar-2004
Posts: 1142
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

@Fab

I hope at the end of this somebody summarizes it. How slow is OS4 memory allocation?

_________________
X5000 / AmigaOne 500(OS4.1 FE) / microA1(OS4.1 FE) / Cubic IDE / Imagine / Blender
Lightwave 2019 / Microsoft Visual C++

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Fab 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 15:11:27
#70 ]
Super Member
Joined: 17-Mar-2004
Posts: 1178
From: Unknown

@thinkchip

Well, in favorable conditions (i.e small allocations), OS4 allocator seems to be a bit faster than MorphOS old allocator, but several times slower than MorphOS TLSF allocator (which is the default allocator).

With bigger allocations (one should determine how much exactly), OS4 allocator seems really *extremely* slower than all other allocators (even compared to a 68k machine).

That's all that could be said from my original benchmark (and the derivated version with smaller sizes). Umisef's benchmark should also be run on OS4, since it's much more interesting to show the actual allocator performance in a fragmentation condition.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
number6 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 15:31:16
#71 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Posts: 10867
From: In the village

@Fab

Quote:
That's all that could be said from my original benchmark (and the derivated version with smaller sizes). Umisef's benchmark should also be run on OS4, since it's much more interesting to show the actual allocator performance in a fragmentation condition.


If others feel this would be a worthy test and supply an executable, I'd be happy to incorporate my results with the other tests I've run here on 4.0, for whatever it's worth.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Interesting 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 15:48:27
#72 ]
Super Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2004
Posts: 1812
From: a place & time long long ago, when things mattered.

@KimmoK

Quote:
Interesting indeed !!!


you call ?



btw: anyone port this test to a Mac PPC and run it? I for one would like to see what we get.

Last edited by Interesting on 21-Sep-2009 at 03:51 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 16:23:23
#73 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1675
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Interesting

Quote:
btw: anyone port this test to a Mac PPC and run it?


Small allocations:

1000 iterations: Elapsed time: 9916 us (0.009916 s)
2000 iterations: Elapsed time: 20402 us (0.020402 s)
10000 iterations: Elapsed time: 99572 us (0.099572 s)
50000 iterations: Elapsed time: 496547 us (0.496547 s)
100000 iterations: Elapsed time: 1019312 us (1.019312 s)
1000000 iterations: Elapsed time: 9928873 us (9.928873 s)

Power-of-two
1000 iterations: Elapsed time: 44308 us (0.044308 s)
2000 iterations: Elapsed time: 89221 us (0.089221 s)
10000 iterations: Elapsed time: 443498 us (0.443498 s)
50000 iterations: Elapsed time: 2213461 us (2.213461 s)
100000 iterations: Elapsed time: 4421420 us (4.421420 s)
1000000 iterations: Elapsed time: 44288658 us (44.288658 s)

1.25GHz G4, 512k L2, 167MHz FSB, MacOS X Leopard

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
mike 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 16:42:10
#74 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2007
Posts: 406
From: Alpha Centauri

15.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 1000
Elapsed time: 212202 �s = 212 ms
Average time: 10 �s (per allocation + deallocation)
15.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 2000
Elapsed time: 424403 �s = 424 ms
Average time: 10 �s (per allocation + deallocation)
15.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 5000
Elapsed time: 1065175 �s = 1065 ms
Average time: 10 �s (per allocation + deallocation)
15.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 50000
Elapsed time: 10640157 �s = 10640 ms
Average time: 10 �s (per allocation + deallocation)
15.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 100000
Elapsed time: 21277950 �s = 21277 ms
Average time: 10 �s (per allocation + deallocation)

I have a feeling some consistent benchmarks would be nice. I dont really understand why wawa's cyberstorm is slower then this blizzard 1260. And tlsf seems to be a two fold improvement over filelist

Last edited by mike on 21-Sep-2009 at 04:46 PM.
Last edited by mike on 21-Sep-2009 at 04:46 PM.
Last edited by mike on 21-Sep-2009 at 04:43 PM.

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wawa 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 17:47:22
#75 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Jan-2008
Posts: 6259
From: Unknown

@mike:

seems its really tlsf dependant, now i can confirm your results:

15.RAM_0:> tlsfmem
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 1000
Elapsed time: 218796 Ás = 218 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 2000
Elapsed time: 444772 Ás = 444 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 5000
Elapsed time: 1097295 Ás = 1097 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 10000
Elapsed time: 2193542 Ás = 2193 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 50000
Elapsed time: 10910625 Ás = 10910 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 100000
Elapsed time: 20822604 Ás = 20822 ms
Average time: 9 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 1000000
Elapsed time: 210849014 Ás = 210849 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)

ive previously forgot to switch off the muforce background and the rest.
without it:
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 1000
Elapsed time: 1200470 Ás = 1200 ms
Average time: 57 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 2000
Elapsed time: 2379933 Ás = 2379 ms
Average time: 56 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 5000
Elapsed time: 6028652 Ás = 6028 ms
Average time: 57 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
15.RAM_0:> membench-bernd_afa_os3 10000
Elapsed time: 12075588 Ás = 12075 ms
Average time: 57 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)

it is still much slower than tlsf. damn, i want the tlsf aware release of mutools!! (and i need to throw all remaining warpos crap down the toilet:P)

Last edited by wawa on 21-Sep-2009 at 05:54 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
mike 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 18:10:44
#76 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2007
Posts: 406
From: Alpha Centauri

@wawa

Thanks yep, with tlsf its consistent.

8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 1000
Elapsed time: 245460 Ás = 245 ms
Average time: 11 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 2000
Elapsed time: 486063 Ás = 486 ms
Average time: 11 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 5000
Elapsed time: 1228521 Ás = 1228 ms
Average time: 11 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 10000
Elapsed time: 2461173 Ás = 2461 ms
Average time: 11 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 50000
Elapsed time: 12155125 Ás = 12155 ms
Average time: 11 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 100000
Elapsed time: 24119190 Ás = 24119 ms
Average time: 11 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 1000000
Elapsed time: 241136363 Ás = 241136 ms
Average time: 11 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> w39:patch/tlsfmem/tlsfmem
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 1000
Elapsed time: 221012 Ás = 221 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 2000
Elapsed time: 443853 Ás = 443 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 5000
Elapsed time: 1109797 Ás = 1109 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 10000
Elapsed time: 2211227 Ás = 2211 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 50000
Elapsed time: 11035257 Ás = 11035 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 100000
Elapsed time: 22080445 Ás = 22080 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench> membench-bernd_afa_OS3 1000000
Elapsed time: 221550640 Ás = 221550 ms
Average time: 10 Ás (per allocation + deallocation)
8.dill:bench>


_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
mike 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 21-Sep-2009 18:10:55
#77 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2007
Posts: 406
From: Alpha Centauri

double

Last edited by mike on 21-Sep-2009 at 06:11 PM.

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
mike 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 22-Sep-2009 15:54:02
#78 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2007
Posts: 406
From: Alpha Centauri

@umisef

What changes did you make to the mac compile?
Would be interesting to run this on linux 68k as well.

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 22-Sep-2009 16:10:56
#79 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 9992
From: Greensborough, Australia

@bernd_afa

Quote:
@Hypex
>Now that we have more reasonable sounding results,


Huh? When did I say this?

Or you just trying to bring me into the conversation?

Okay then, so where is test you want me to modify?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bernd_afa 
Re: Interesting memory allocation benchmark
Posted on 22-Sep-2009 16:36:16
#80 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 14-Apr-2006
Posts: 829
From: Unknown

@itix
>Each time when you allocate or deallocate memory Wipeout fills memory block with >0xDEADBEEF (or similar) pattern and checks tracked memory.

wipeout check not every memallac/free memory.there need wipeout check called or a period add so it check all.

I do this amiblitz test.

It alloc mem and overwrite the bound and then alloc another mem and free the other mem.then on trap # 0 come the guru requester and stop the program until press continue.the metrash is not show.only when i click on continue and the freemem a,16 is execute, then the wipeout Hit come.

a.l = AllocMem_(16,0)
Poke.l a+16,4
b.l = AllocMem_(24,0)
FreeMem_ b,24
TRAP #0
FreeMem_ a,16 ; only here the Hit is detect.

so

On my system a wipeout check i use sometimes and for 256 MB mem it take 0,1 sec to check.

i think thats lots too slow to do every alloc/free.

but the fill with illegal values and bound checks should not slowdown all so much.

Have you test on your Peg what the memtest values are when you use wipeout ?

@Hypex
>Huh? When did I say this?

sorry i look again, i mean ChrisH.
I change the last post

Last edited by bernd_afa on 22-Sep-2009 at 05:06 PM.
Last edited by bernd_afa on 22-Sep-2009 at 05:06 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle