On 2013/01/04 07:36:59, dvyukov wrote:
On 2013/01/04 07:19:15, nsf wrote:
On 2013/01/03 15:29:31, dvyukov wrote:
Hello mailto:golang-dev@googlegroups.com,
I'd like you to review this change to
https://dvyukov%25252540google.com%252540code.google.com/p/go/
For my ray tracer stuff the behaviour is very similar to what I hadHello mailto:golang-dev@googlegroups.com,
I'd like you to review this change to
https://dvyukov%25252540google.com%252540code.google.com/p/go/
previous patch.
Machine: amd64/linux on i5-3470 CPU.
Before (tip d0d76b7fb219):
Rendering took 2m 34.5s
Sys: 85928184
StackInuse: 102400
StackSys: 31981568
After (tip d0d76b7fb219 + issue7029044_6007.diff):
Rendering took 2m 35.2s
Sys: 55128064
StackInuse: 12885004288
StackSys: 2621440
This time the actual runtime.MemStats numbers instead of staring at
Machine: amd64/linux on i5-3470 CPU.
Before (tip d0d76b7fb219):
Rendering took 2m 34.5s
Sys: 85928184
StackInuse: 102400
StackSys: 31981568
After (tip d0d76b7fb219 + issue7029044_6007.diff):
Rendering took 2m 35.2s
Sys: 55128064
StackInuse: 12885004288
StackSys: 2621440
This time the actual runtime.MemStats numbers instead of staring at
RES
Do you miss a part of the sentence?(resident memory size).
Rendering time is similar (less than 1% difference is
not statistically significant).
not statistically significant).
Oh and this time I was using 50 rays per pixel
instead of 100, just to make tests quicker. Also note the anomally
instead of 100, just to make tests quicker. Also note the anomally
StackInuse number in your patch. Is it a miscalculation?
Thanks! This is actually a bug. Fixed:https://codereview.appspot.com/7029044/diff2/6007:13007/src/pkg/runtime/stack_test.go
https://codereview.appspot.com/7029044/
