Fix benchmarks since iterate memory pages is expensive #1651
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
Aschen
force-pushed
the
fix-memory-benchmarks
branch
from
008e244
to
0dc0ef6
Compare
|
Should we merge this one so subsequent benchmarks will be correct? |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I got some strange results by benchmarking promises with those benchmarks. Performances seemed to be worst after Node.js 10.
I reported the issue on Node and one of the developers finds out: nodejs/node#33384
It's because default page size has been divided by 2 after Node.js 10 so iterate over memory pages with
process.memoryUsage()to get therssis at least 2 times slower.I fixed the benchmark so they don't take the pages iteration time into account.
I also updated the benchmark results.