Trial tracemalloc as memory tracker (replacement v2 PR) #5946
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
What I think we can deduce from the benchmark results
|
This was referenced May 9, 2024
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5946 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 89.78% 89.78%
=======================================
Files 93 93
Lines 23007 23007
Branches 5017 5017
=======================================
Hits 20657 20657
Misses 1620 1620
Partials 730 730 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Updated ideas@trexfeathers pointed out that the above were run on a machine with only 4 CPUs (hyperthread), hence nworkers=4/9 can be expected to be questionable. Hence changes in d039ad0
New resultstypical run ... Some interpretationRunStyle checks are now more understandable.BUT N.B. results are still not very stable from time to time ((but generally, ARE about the same for both methods, as we would expect))
MemcheckBlocksAndWorkersGeneral picture MEMORY now makes more sense : can see memory reducing with nblocks, and increasing with nworkers compare methods conclude
|
Outcome
|
| nblocks = params["nblocks"] | ||
| nworkers = params["nworkers"] | ||
|
|
||
| nyfull = ysize // nblocks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like you're applying this division twice, I think that's why adding blocks has such an exagerated effect on performance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, yes I see !
Hopefully that may explain the peculiar behaviour of the timings too.
I will fix this and re-investigate ...
pp-mo
added
the
benchmark_this
|
Full results, from new code introduced in 84ff4ad |
|
Conclusions:
|
⏱️ Performance Benchmark Report: a3a20b5Performance shiftsFull benchmark resultsGenerated by GHA run |
|
Note: the results reported in the whole-benchmark runs behave a little differently.
|
|
Added Just for reference. Some combined resultsConclusionsThe allocation pattern is a trifle hard to explain. |
Merged
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.
WIP DO NOT MERGE THIS, EVER
Some modified code for memory benchmarks, evaluating "tracemalloc" against our existing Linux process-RSS measuring technique.
Additional context : sample output from a desktop run