I seem to remember there being some global namespace. Since every reasonable place will require racket/place, might it be possible to make the racket/place import a special case and stick it in the global space, to improve place setup time? It would be nice to be able to only set up racket/place one time instead of once for each place.
Nate > On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Actually, it cuts about 20-25ms off of a single import. Down from 185ms to > 165ms for me. 50ms off my startup time of my app on average, since i > basically stack the import twice and sync on the place being ready. > > Might be worth including and seeing if there’s anything else that can be > shaved off. > > Nate > >> On Nov 24, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Nathaniel W Griswold <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I checked into it a bit. >> >> racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, and racket/vector are needed by >> “private/th-place.rkt”, which is required by racket/place. Not sure why >> DrRacket is saying that it’s not needed. >> >> racket/runtime-path does not appear to be needed. >> >> I tried removing racket/runtime-path and racket/match but didn’t see any >> performance gains. It appears the delay is elsewhere. >> >> Nate >> >>> On Nov 24, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Robby Findler <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> DrRacket thinks that there are no references to a number of the requires in >>> racket/place, including racket/fixnum, racket/flonum, racket/vector, and >>> racket/runtime-path. Not sure if that's an error on DrRacket's part (and I >>> don't see why those would be needed for their effects). >>> >>> Also, the only use of racket/match seems to be this, which seems simple to >>> rewrite out. >>> >>> (match name >>> [(? symbol?) `(submod (quote ,name) ,submod-name)] >>> [(? path?) `(submod ,name ,submod-name)] >>> [`(,p ,s ...) `(submod ,(if (symbol? p) `(quote ,p) p) ,@s >>> ,submod-name)]) >>> >>> Robby >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nate Griswold <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Oh, interesting. So compilation breaks the submodule out from the modules >>> if possible? >>> >>> So anyway, it sounds like breaking my modules out into separate files will >>> improve performance in most cases. >>> >>> Unfortunately, i need racket/place in the module that is my startup >>> bottleneck. If i modify the previous program to require racket/place and >>> compile, it takes around 180ms. >>> >>> This is about what i can expect for a module that requires racket/place, >>> then? >>> >>> Nate >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:48 AM Matthew Flatt <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Just to elaborate a little more: >>> >>> The difference is because the `test` submodule can be loaded >>> independently from the compiled form. Loading the submodule from source >>> requires loading the enclosing module, too (which depends on >>> `racket/place` and more). >>> >>> At Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:46:12 -0600, Nate Griswold wrote: >>> > Awesome, thanks! >>> > >>> > Nate >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:44 AM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected] >>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Almost certainly the problem is expansion time. If I run that program >>> > > on my machine, it takes about 200 ms. But if I compile the file to zo >>> > > first with `raco make`, then it takes about 40 ms, basically identical >>> > > to `racket/base`. >>> > > >>> > > Sam >>> > > >>> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:39 AM Nate Griswold <[email protected] >>> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > 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] <mailto:[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] >>> > > >> <mailto:[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] >>> > > >> <mailto:racket-users%[email protected]>. >>> > > >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPpvfCHHDDpfNmuTWQOyfYfEJ7v >>> > >>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPpvfCHHDDpfNmuTWQOyfYfEJ7v> >>> > > >> m1c_dS7nj3FxaEFVm2Q%40mail.gmail.com <http://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] >>> > > <mailto:racket-users%[email protected]>. >>> > > > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> > > >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqtJrem4j%3DUi3fbrduoahsXC >>> > >>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqtJrem4j%3DUi3fbrduoahsXC> >>> > NNA2JPuB0Tt9dissiu5KA%40mail.gmail.com <http://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] >>> > <mailto:racket-users%[email protected]>. >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqVgEBvrRzjU7%3DX_h3Wy_YUH >>> > >>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPqVgEBvrRzjU7%3DX_h3Wy_YUH> >>> > 11G6CX5%2BKjSct26pi3oEA%40mail.gmail.com <http://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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPoLD6N%3Dwep%2Bed5UGduA7mZ-SaYxFJ9VbqM78CppMG3m2w%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAM-xLPoLD6N%3Dwep%2Bed5UGduA7mZ-SaYxFJ9VbqM78CppMG3m2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> > -- 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/9096D2B6-A919-4EE0-9530-8F177E5168EE%40manicmind.earth.
