[racket] Why parameterize is so sloooow?
No, not if you mean "deep binding" in the sense of a list that has to
be searched to find a parameter value.
At Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:23:52 -0700, Joe Marshall wrote:
> Sounds like Racket is using a "deep binding" strategy rather than "shallow
> binding". I expect that SBCL uses shallow.
> On Aug 16, 2013 5:10 AM, "Matthew Flatt" <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> > At Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:59:55 +0400, Roman Klochkov wrote:
> > >
> > > I compared parameterize with lexical var
> > > ----
> > > > (require rackunit)
> > > > (define my-parameter (make-parameter (box 0)))
> > > > (time
> > > (parameterize ([my-parameter (box 0)])
> > > (for ([x (in-range 10000000)])
> > > (set-box! (my-parameter)
> > > (add1 (unbox (my-parameter)))))
> > > (check-equal? (unbox (my-parameter)) 10000000)))
> > > cpu time: 3578 real time: 3610 gc time: 0
> > > > (time
> > > (let ([my-parameter (box 0)])
> > > (for ([x (in-range 10000000)])
> > > (set-box! my-parameter
> > > (add1 (unbox my-parameter))))
> > > (check-equal? (unbox my-parameter) 10000000)))
> > > cpu time: 47 real time: 47 gc time: 0
> > > ----
> > >
> > > 100 times difference!
> > >
> > > The same experiment with Common Lisp (SBCL):
> > > ----
> > > CL-USER> (setf *a* (list 0))
> > > (0)
> > > CL-USER> (time (progn (loop :for i :from 0 :below 10000000
> > > :do (setf (car *a*) (+ 1 (car *a*)))) (= (car *a*)
> > 10000000)))
> > > Evaluation took:
> > > 0.063 seconds of real time
> > > 0.062500 seconds of total run time (0.062500 user, 0.000000 system)
> > > 98.41% CPU
> > > 172,464,541 processor cycles
> > > 0 bytes consed
> > >
> > > T
> > > CL-USER> (let ((a (list 0))) (time (loop :for i :from 0 :below 10000000
> > > :do (setf (car a) (+ 1 (car a))))) (= (car a) 10000000))
> > >
> > > Evaluation took:
> > > 0.047 seconds of real time
> > > 0.046875 seconds of total run time (0.046875 user, 0.000000 system)
> > > 100.00% CPU
> > > 132,098,942 processor cycles
> > > 0 bytes consed
> > >
> > > T
> > > ----
> > > Only 1.5 times.
> > >
> > > Is it undesirable to use parameterize as replacement for common lisp
> > special
> > > variables? What is it designed for then?
> >
> > Parameters in Racket are grouped together in a an extra layer called a
> > "parameterization", which enables capture of the current values of all
> > parameters. For example, when a new thread is created in Racket, then
> > the new inherits all of the current parameter values from the creating
> > thread. A lack of cleverness in that layer is probably the main effect
> > on performance in yuor example.
> >
> > Using a raw, symbol-keyed continuation mark would be closer to a Common
> > Lisp special variable, I think. On my machine:
> >
> > ;; parameter
> > > (time
> > (parameterize ([my-parameter (box 0)])
> > (for ([x (in-range 10000000)])
> > (set-box! (my-parameter)
> > (add1 (unbox (my-parameter)))))
> > (check-equal? (unbox (my-parameter)) 10000000)))
> > cpu time: 2539 real time: 2537 gc time: 0
> >
> > ;; direct
> > > (time
> > (let ([my-parameter (box 0)])
> > (for ([x (in-range 10000000)])
> > (set-box! my-parameter
> > (add1 (unbox my-parameter))))
> > (check-equal? (unbox my-parameter) 10000000)))
> > cpu time: 45 real time: 45 gc time: 0
> >
> > ;; raw continuation mark:
> > > (time
> > (let ([my-parameter
> > (lambda ()
> > (continuation-mark-set-first #f 'my-parameter))])
> > (with-continuation-mark
> > 'my-parameter
> > (box 0)
> > (begin
> > (for ([x (in-range 10000000)])
> > (set-box! (my-parameter)
> > (add1 (unbox (my-parameter)))))
> > (check-equal? (unbox (my-parameter)) 10000000)))))
> > cpu time: 244 real time: 243 gc time: 0
> >
> > That's still a fact of 5 difference. I expect that dynamic binding and
> > special variables have played a more prominent role in Common Lisp than
> > parameters or even continuation-mark lookup in Racket, and so it would
> > make sense that more work has been done in the SBCL to make them fast.
> >
> >
> > ____________________
> > Racket Users list:
> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
> >