here - Stefan-Marr.de

8. Evaluation: Performance
Runtime Ratio, normalized RoarVM (opt), lower is better
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
Binary Trees
Chameneos
Fannkuch
Fasta
NBody
Compiler
Slopstone
Smopstone
Binary Trees
Chameneos
Fannkuch
Fasta
NBody
Compiler
Slopstone
Smopstone
Binary Trees
Chameneos
Fannkuch
Fasta
NBody
Compiler
Slopstone
Smopstone
RoarVM (opt)
RoarVM (std)
CogVM
Figure 8.2.: Baseline Performance: Runtime ratio normalized to the RoarVM (opt) for
the kernel benchmarks. This beanplot gives an overview of the relative performance
of each of the VMs separately for each benchmark. The plot, as well as
all other plots depicting ratios, uses a logarithmic scale for the y-axis.
different use of primitives, allocation, arithmetic, and stack operations. See
Appendix B.1 for a characterization of the benchmarks.
RoarVM Variants Differences between the RoarVM variants are significant
as well, but less pronounced. The RoarVM (opt) is about 23% 21 faster than
the RoarVM (std). Here the performance difference ranges from a minimal
speedup of 6% to a maximum speedup of 43% for the kernel benchmarks. In
view of this significant difference, the RoarVM (opt) is used as baseline for
the remaining benchmarks. As argued in Sec. 8.1.3, the optimizations applied
to the RoarVM are realistic. Therefore, any constant overhead introduced by
21 A speedup or slowdown reported as n% refers to VM 1 /VM baseline ∗ 100 − 100. In this case
it is: (RoarVM (opt)/RoarVM (std)∗100) − 100
212