[Stackless] Stackless 3.0 alpha 1 at blinding speed
peterk at bayarea.net
Thu Apr 17 17:53:29 CEST 2003
That's amazing. 20M switches / second. For kicks, I checked out the
latest CVS version and ran the taskspeed.py on my Windows desktop and
my Solaris system at the office. Here are the numbers:
Windows XP, 1GHZ Pentium III, 512 MB
10000000 frame switches took 8.24581 seconds, rate = 1212737/s
10000000 frame softswitches took 4.13202 seconds, rate = 2420125/s
10000000 cfunction calls took 4.07010 seconds, rate = 2456940/s
10000000 cframe softswitches took 0.90428 seconds, rate = 11058576/s
10000000 cframe switches took 4.94676 seconds, rate = 2021526/s
10000000 cframe 100 words took 9.59657 seconds, rate = 1042039/s
The penalty per stack word is about 0.940 percent of raw switching.
Stack size of initial stub = 14
Stack size of frame tasklet = 58
Stack size of cframe tasklet = 35
Solaris 8, 500Mhz UltraSparc II, 1GB
pkropf at centipede:/space/users/pkropf/stackless/src> ./python Stackless/test/taskspeed.py
10000000 frame switches took 110.61000 seconds, rate = 90407/s
10000000 frame softswitches took 9.57000 seconds, rate = 1044932/s
10000000 cfunction calls took 8.38000 seconds, rate = 1193317/s
10000000 cframe softswitches took 2.79000 seconds, rate = 3584229/s
10000000 cframe switches took 88.54000 seconds, rate = 112943/s
10000000 cframe 100 words took 137.78000 seconds, rate = 72579/s
The penalty per stack word is about 0.556 percent of raw switching.
Stack size of initial stub = 114
Stack size of frame tasklet = 298
Stack size of cframe tasklet = 232
Can I inquire on the type of system that you achieved the 20M switches /
second? Also, can I assume that the basic stackless API that's in the 3.0
alpha is reasonably stable? I've some simulation ideas that I'd like to
try out using it and have been waiting for the 3.0 version to come out
before I spend too much time coding.
> Dear community, dear Stackless addicts, dear friends,
> Ich habe Euch wirklich was zu erzählen, liebe Freunde,
> I really have to tell you a story!
> During the last four months, I have been struggling with
> Stackless Python, and especially with myself and how to
> get re-focused on my major project which you know very well.
> Some of you might know quite well too how hard this was for me,
> especially in the context of my parent's endangeroured health.
> This particular problem seems to be solved,
> for the moment, so let's celebrate the moment, celebrate the moment!
> Without going into details, I would like to tell you about the
> current status of Stackless Python.
> For short, like an abstract, Stackless 3.0 is something like an
> or-merge of Stackless 1.0 and 2.0 technology.
> Guido, Tim, you both will probably remember my lengthy approaches
> to introduce those continuations, years ago, you both convinced
> me to drop them, and I did what I was supposed to do. I'm hopefully
> a proper citizen, right now. Anyway, you know I'll never really be...
> After a long period of depression, I re-invented Stackless in early
> 2002, with a version number of 2.0, denoting that I had dropped all the
> 1.0 paradigms (as there are: (1) try to keep compatible, (2) do minimal
> changes only, (3) absolutely avoid assembly code at all)
> At the same time, I dismissed all of my Stackless 1.0 code, which was
> continuation-based, an absolute no-no in Guido's eyes. I still do think
> that TimP wasn't that conformant to this "nono"-statement, after I read
> a lot of his comments, especially side-notes on the thread-sig,
> but this time Guido's veto was clearly stronger than Tim's arguing,
> a thing that doesn't happen so often, but I'm proactively respecting
> this, positively.
> Now, after all that rubbish, let's go into facts, which are quite
> Today, I finished Stackless Python 3.0, alpha 3.0.1!
> First of all, I would like to talk about the new principles.
> Yes, no, there are no longer continuations in that sense.
> I'm meanwhile convinced that we don't want to support them,
> any longer, although I'm happy that Stackless allowed me to
> learn *all* any much more about them that that is avalable
> on the wor(th|ld) w/h)i(d|l)e net!!
> Q: What is it about that Stackless 3.0, will this guy never shut up???
> A: No, he most probably never will, unless he's dead, and this is
> another 40 or more years in advance, for heaven's sake.
> Q: So, what is it about that Stackless 3.0 hype around since months?
> A: Simple! Stackless 3.0 has all the hardware switching stuff in it
> that Stackless 2.0 had. Stackless 3.0 also incorporates 80% of the
> soft switching protocol that Stackless 1.0 had.
> But there are a lot of new features:
> Stackless has again shown how to marry the impossible with the
> imbelievable, and this is the new concept of Stackless 3.0:
> There is a maerge between (1.0) soft context switching and (2.0)
> hard context switching, which always does the most reasonable thing.
> There are a lot of benefits which stem from this hybrid solution,
> which will appear in one of my most recent papers, pretty soon.
> Let me simply end this pamphlete with some simple sentences:
> Stackless Python is more capable of tasklets switching than any
> other light-weight threading software package.
> If anyone disagrees, please give me a runnable counter-example.
> Here are some impressive site-specific time measurements, which
> especially show, that 20.000.000 cframe tasklet switches per
> second are really, really hard to beat.
> Pythonon Win32:
> D:\slpdev\src\2.2\src\Stackless\test>..\..\pcbuild\python taskspeed.py
> 10000000 frame switches took 3.83061 seconds, rate = 2610551/s
> 10000000 frame softswitches took 2.40112 seconds, rate = 4164718/s
> 10000000 cfunction calls took 2.13033 seconds, rate = 4694098/s
> 10000000 cframe softswitches took 0.49296 seconds, rate = 20285627/s
> 10000000 cframe switches took 1.98907 seconds, rate = 5027486/s
> 10000000 cframe 100 words took 3.93737 seconds, rate = 2539768/s
> The penalty per stack word is about 0.980 percent of raw switching.
> Stack size of initial stub = 14
> Stack size of frame tasklet = 58
> Stack size of cframe tasklet = 35
> Python on Debian
> Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer at tismer.com>
> Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
> Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
> 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
> work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
> PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
> whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at www.tismer.com
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at www.tismer.com
More information about the Stackless