Oops, i am having some issues with not getting to the list from my other email address. Here is a reply i sent for the record.
--- Thank you, Matthew. The following code takes around 250ms on my machine. Any idea why? I was expecting it to be fast since the module is based on racket/base. #lang racket/base (require syntax/location) (require racket/place) (module test racket/base (provide place-main) racket (define (place-main pch) (void))) (time (place-wait (dynamic-place (quote-module-path test) 'place-main))) Nate On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:35 AM Nathaniel W Griswold <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you, Matthew. > > The following code takes around 250ms on my machine. Any idea why? I was > expecting it to be fast since the module is based on racket/base. > > #lang racket/base > > (require syntax/location) > (require racket/place) > > > (module test racket/base > (provide place-main) > racket > (define (place-main pch) > (void))) > > (time (place-wait (dynamic-place (quote-module-path test) 'place-main))) > > Nate > > On Nov 24, 2020, at 8:16 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > The bottleneck for place startup is loading modules into the new place, > including modules like `racket/base`. > > For example, > > (place-wait (dynamic-place 'racket 'void)) > > takes around 200ms on my machine, while > > (place-wait (dynamic-place 'racket/base 'void)) > > takes around 30ms and > > (place-wait (dynamic-place 'racket/kernel 'void)) > > takes around 10ms. > > It sounds like you're already aware that the complexity of the module > loaded into a place matters, though. Beyond using a minimal set of > modules, I don't have any way to make place startup faster. > > Matthew > > At Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:04:19 -0600, Nate Griswold wrote: > > Is there any way to make places startup faster? Even if i do an explicit > round trip using place-channel-put and place-channel-get on both sides, it > takes on the order of centiseconds for near empty places to start up. > > My program requires the threads for a couple places to be set up before it > can operate, so this impacts my startup time by quite a bit. > > I have one place that has a very simple module and one place with a more > complicated module. Is there some sequence that i should do things in for > the minimal startup time? It seems nothing i do really helps much. > > Nate > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPpvfCHHDDpfNmuTWQOyfYfEJ7v > m1c_dS7nj3FxaEFVm2Q%40mail.gmail.com. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqtJrem4j%3DUi3fbrduoahsXCNNA2JPuB0Tt9dissiu5KA%40mail.gmail.com.
