here - Stefan-Marr.de

8. Evaluation: Performance
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
Binary Trees
Chameneos
Fannkuch
Fasta
NBody
Compiler
Slopstone
Smopstone
Runtime Ratio, normalized to
RoarVM (Clang 3.0), lower is better
RoarVM (Clang 3.0)
RoarVM (GCC 4.2)
Figure 8.3.: Baseline Performance: Comparing RoarVM compiled with Clang 3.0 and
GCC 4.2. All results are normalized to the mean of the measurement for Clang.
The beanplot shows the distribution of measurements and indicates that GCC
4.2 produces a binary that is about 3% slower, which is not significant in view of
the differences measured between the other VMs.
8.4. Ad hoc vs. OMOP Performance
When assessing the practicality of the OMOP compared to ad hoc approaches
for implementing concurrent programming concepts, the main question is
whether an implementation based on the OMOP will be required to accept
performance penalties for using the extra level of abstraction. In short, the
experiments discussed in this section indicate that this is not necessarily the
case and OMOP-based implementations can be on par with ad hoc implementations.
Setup To compare the performance between OMOP-based and ad hoc implementations,
the proposed experiments use the LRSTM and AmbientTalkST
variants of the benchmarks and measure the runtime for the following eight
configurations:
With this setup, on the one hand the performance of ad hoc implementations
can be compared to OMOP-based implementations, and on the other
hand, the efficiency of the AST-transformation-based (AST-OMOP) and the
214