Feature #14235: Merge MJIT infrastructure with conservative JIT compiler

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)
• Target version: 2.6

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

Background

In Feature#12589, Vladimir Makarov proposed to improve VM performance by replacing VM instructions
to RTL and introduce method JIT compiler based on those instructions.

While his approach for JIT (write C code to local file system, let C compiler executable
to compile it to shared object file and load it dynamically) was great and proven to work,
replacing all VM instructions may change the behavior of all Ruby programs and we can't turn off
such changes once it's released, even if we find a problem. So it's a little risky unlike optional JIT enablement.

Then I developed a JIT compiler called YARV-MJIT, which does not require any VM instruction changes.
After it, I heard Vladimir started to work on another approach to compile from current YARV instructions and
use RTL as IR for JIT compilation, but it's not published yet as far as I know.

Problems

• We're developing the same JIT infrastructure independently, which can be shared for both implementations
  • it's definitely a waste of time, unlike seeking different optimization approaches
• If we continue to develop JIT in a big feature branch,
  • affected places will be big too, and thus it'll be a dangerous release
  • all of us will continue to waste our time by day-to-day conflict resolution against trunk
  • many valuable commit logs will be lost when we maintain the branch for rebase or squash commits on merge

Solution

• Proposal: Merge MJIT infrastructure from Vladimir's patch with a conservative JIT compiler in early 2.6 development.
  • MJIT infrastructure means: JIT worker thread, profiler, gcc/clang compiler support, loading function from shared object file, some hooks to ensure JIT does not cause SEGV, etc...

Patch: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1782

What's the "conservative JIT compiler"?

• Based on my YARV-MJIT, but this drops some problematic optimizations and is slower
• Pass make test, make test-all, make test-spec with and without JIT https://travis-ci.org/ruby/ruby/builds/321589821
• Unlike MJIT on RTL, we can play optcarrot (not just for benchmark, but on GUI) and run Rails application stably (not tested on production yet though)

Notes

• As YARV-MJIT implementation improved MJIT infrastructure too, pthread was already ported to Windows native threads and it can be compiled with Visual Studio.
  • That's exactly why we should develop this in cooperation
• Visual Sudio is not supported as C compiler for JIT compilation. I did some experiments and had some ideas to support cl.exe, but I didn't want to add extra complexity to initial merge.
  • But it's perfectly working on MinGW and this will be available on Windows if a user uses RubyInstaller2.

Optcarrot

Benchmarked with: Intel 4.0GHz i7-4790K with 16GB memory under x86-64 Ubuntu 8 Cores, gcc 5.4.0

	2.0.0	2.5.0	JIT off	JIT on
optcarrot fps	35.05	46.75	46.05	63.06
vs 2.0.0	1.00x	1.33x	1.31x	1.80x

• 2.0.0: Ruby 2.0.0-p0
• 2.5.0: Ruby 2.5.0 (r61468)
• JIT off: Patched Ruby (based on r61475), JIT disabled
• JIT on: Patched Ruby (based on r61475), JIT enabled

Disclaimer: This JIT compiler performs better with gcc compared to clang for now, so it may be slow on macOS (clang).

Micro benchmarks

I used Vladimir's benchmark set which I modified for my convenience https://github.com/benchmark-driver/mjit-benchmarks.

	2.0.0-p0	2.5.0	JIT off	JIT on
aread	1.00	1.01	0.97	2.33
aref	1.00	0.96	0.96	3.01
aset	1.00	1.39	1.37	3.70
awrite	1.00	1.07	1.03	2.54
call	1.00	1.25	1.22	3.39
const	1.00	0.96	0.96	4.00
const2	1.00	0.96	0.96	3.97
fannk	1.00	0.98	1.02	1.00
fib	1.00	1.16	1.24	3.19
ivread	1.00	0.94	0.93	4.96
ivwrite	1.00	1.09	1.09	3.32
mandelbrot	1.00	0.98	0.98	1.27
meteor	1.00	3.02	2.85	3.16
nbody	1.00	1.02	0.99	1.47
nest-ntimes	1.00	1.05	1.01	1.31
nest-while	1.00	0.96	0.96	1.63
norm	1.00	1.06	1.07	1.26
nsvb	1.00	0.98	0.88	0.88
red-black	1.00	1.03	1.02	1.54
sieve	1.00	1.22	1.22	1.75
trees	1.00	1.07	1.08	1.32
while	1.00	0.96	0.96	5.13

Interface details

If the proposal is accepted, I'm going to add following CLI options:

  -j, --jit       use MJIT with default options
  -j:option, --jit:option
                  use MJIT with an option

MJIT options:
  c, cc           C compiler to generate native code (gcc, clang)
  s, save-temps   Save MJIT temporary files in $TMP or /tmp
  w, warnings     Enable printing MJIT warnings
  d, debug        Enable MJIT debugging (very slow)
  v=num, verbose=num
                  Print MJIT logs of level num or less to stderr
  n=num, num-cache=num
                  Maximum number of JIT codes in a cache

Note that -j:l/--jit:llvm are changed to -j:c/--jit:cc so that we can support cl.exe (Visual Studio) in the future.

Also, for testing, I would like to have following module and method.

MJIT.enabled? #=> true / false

See the commit log for details.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

• Related to Feature #12589: VM performance improvement proposal added

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

Should the performance of MJIT be evaluated in more details before merging?

Merging the MJIT infrastructure means choosing MJIT as the MRI JIT, right?
If so, it would be good to have performance numbers on other larger benchmarks, not just optcarrot.

Many of the MJIT micro-benchmarks are just benchmarks to test optimizations.
IMHO, they should only be considered as showcases of possible speedups,
as they are not representative of real Ruby workloads.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

Merging the MJIT infrastructure means choosing MJIT as the MRI JIT, right?

Taking a closer look at the PR, it seems mostly infrastructure for a MJIT-like JIT.

On the other hand, mjit_compile.c is compiling YARV insns to C code, which is YARV-MJIT specific:
https://github.com/k0kubun/ruby/blob/ddb2ff7303982b19adb0a23707722e3ca4ece1d2/mjit_compile.c

So I guess this doesn't fix which variant of MJIT will be chosen,
but it does probably fix that the MRI JIT will be a variant of MJIT.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

Should the performance of MJIT be evaluated in more details before merging?

Definitely true. This ticket was made in hurry for December Ruby Developers Meeting in Japan, so I did only benchmarks which are easy to run at that moment. At least I'm going to run all benchmarks in "/benchmark" directory in Ruby repository.

Merging the MJIT infrastructure means choosing MJIT as the MRI JIT, right?

First of all, I'm regarding "MRI JIT" (and MJIT) as 2 components: JIT infrastructure (Koichi called this as "JIT framework") and JIT compiler. JIT infrastructure includes JIT worker thread, profiler, gcc/clang compiler support, loading function from shared object file, some hooks to ensure JIT does not cause SEGV. And JIT compiler is Vladimir's RTL-based MJIT, insns -> RTL MJIT which is in development, or YARV-MJIT in the patch. Replacing mjit_compile.c allows to replace the component anytime. At least I'm not thinking it means "chosing (YARV-)MJIT as the (final) MRI JIT (compiler)".

In the context, "Merging the MJIT infrastructure" would also mean choosing YARV-MJIT as initial JIT compiler for MRI, but probably all of Ruby developers don't think it's going to be merged as final JIT compiler, as Vladimir is working on another JIT compiler whose first version is much faster than YARV-MJIT.

At the same time, as we can hear in some Ruby conferences, Matz seems to like the MJIT's JIT infrastructure and it might be the solution for a long term. At least LLVM or things that need tricky dependency won't be used. For inlining Ruby core's C code, I believe this part would work well for JIT compilers other than YARV-MJIT approach. As written in this ticket's Problems and Solution, the main goal of this ticket is merging and improving the JIT infrastructure in MJIT.

If so, it would be good to have performance numbers on other larger benchmarks, not just optcarrot.

Many of the MJIT micro-benchmarks are just benchmarks to test optimizations.
IMHO, they should only be considered as showcases of possible speedups,
as they are not representative of real Ruby workloads.

Even while I'm not going to merge it as the final solution, I agree we should have larger benchmarks because nobody will try the MJIT infrastructure if there is no performance gain in its JIT compiler on "real Ruby workloads".

In the initial plan, I was going to use https://github.com/noahgibbs/rails_ruby_bench and still want to use for it. But I get some errors on my environment even with existing Ruby. So it's not just ready. Then I roughly tried to run my simpler Rails application but unfortunately it had no performance gain for now.

I have some optimization ideas that are disabled for now or not implemented yet, and it'll be done in early 2018. If it ends up with no performance gain in "real Ruby workloads", I'll surely revert it. This kind of experiment should be done in early stage of new version, and this timing would be effective for Vladimir's insns -> RTL project (planned to be completed in February) too.

Taking a closer look at the PR, it seems mostly infrastructure for a MJIT-like JIT.

Yes. That's because Matz seems to be already in favor of the direction.

On the other hand, mjit_compile.c is compiling YARV insns to C code, which is YARV-MJIT specific:

Yes, this is intended to be replaced with things like https://github.com/vnmakarov/ruby/blob/21bbbd37b5d9f86910f7679a584bbbfb9dc9c9b1/mjit.c#L1231-L1588

So I guess this doesn't fix which variant of MJIT will be chosen,
but it does probably fix that the MRI JIT will be a variant of MJIT.

I understand "a variant of MJIT" means "method JIT compiler that generates C code from ISeq". If so, probably it's correct but still this is experimental and may be reverted later.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

@k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) Thank you for the clarification!

I understand "a variant of MJIT" means "method JIT compiler that generates C code from ISeq".

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

I think running https://github.com/noahgibbs/rails_ruby_bench would be quite interesting.
I think it's worth opening an issue if something doesn't work with Ruby 2.5.
Maybe @noahgibbs (Noah Gibbs) can help?

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

I should have watched/read your great "Just-In-Time Compiler for MRI" presentation first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti4a7SXGWig
https://speakerdeck.com/k0kubun/just-in-time-compiler-for-mri

That clearly explains how LLRB, YARV-MJIT and MJIT relate.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

Before we merge MJIT, we need to consider what CLI options ruby should have.

Current implementation with some modification that I'll add:

  -j, --jit       use MJIT with default options
  -j:option, --jit:option
                  use MJIT with an option

MJIT options:
  c, cc           C compiler to generate native code (gcc, clang)
  s, save-temps   Save MJIT temporary files in $TMP or /tmp
  w, warnings     Enable printing MJIT warnings
  d, debug        Enable MJIT debugging (very slow)
  v=num, verbose=num
                  Print MJIT logs of level num or less to stderr
  num-cache=num
                  Maximum number of JIT codes in a cache
  num-calls=num
                  Number of calls to trigger JIT compilation 
  wait
                  Synchronously wait for ISeq to be compiled (for testing)

In previous Ruby developers meeting at Tokyo, I received a feedback that "-j" normally implies --jobs.

So, for the first merge, it might be better to have conservative interface like (long versions only):

  --jit       use MJIT with default options
  --jit:option
                  use MJIT with an option

MJIT options:
  cc           C compiler to generate native code (gcc, clang)
  save-temps   Save MJIT temporary files in $TMP or /tmp
  warnings     Enable printing MJIT warnings
  debug        Enable MJIT debugging (very slow)
  verbose=num
                  Print MJIT logs of level num or less to stderr
  num-cache=num
                  Maximum number of JIT codes in a cache
  num-calls=num
                  Number of calls to trigger JIT compilation 
  wait
                  Synchronously wait for ISeq to be compiled (for testing)

Note that we may drop "--jit:cc" in the future after we decide to use C compiler used to build Ruby binary.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

Just my opinion: -j only makes sense in the context of a tool/script which can run in parallel (build tool like make, package manager like bundler, etc).
For Ruby, a programming language interpreter, I think -j as --jobs would be meaningless.

The short form should be there for convenience IMHO, who ever uses a long option with MRI?
(--disable-gems is the only one I can think and that is seldom used)

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

The short form should be there for convenience IMHO

TBH I don't have strong preference on having the short versions or not. But I'm expecting that the only option normal user uses would be only "--jit" and others are basically for Vladimir and me. And I believe "--jit" would be short enough compared to "--disable-gems" and very straight-forward.

Anyway, I share the interface which was considered as reasonable at today's Ruby developers meeting at Tokyo:

  --jit       use MJIT with default options

MJIT options:
  --jit-cc=cc      C compiler to generate native code (gcc, clang)
  --jit-save-temps Save MJIT temporary files in $TMP or /tmp
  --jit-warnings   Enable printing MJIT warnings
  --jit-debug      Enable MJIT debugging (very slow)
  --jit-verbose=num
                   Print MJIT logs of level num or less to stderr
  --jit-max-cache-size=num
                   Maximum number of methods to be JIT-ed in a cache (default: 1000)
  --jit-wait       Synchronously wait for ISeq to be compiled (for testing)
  --jit-threshold=num
                   Number of calls to trigger JIT compilation (default: 5)

As "--jit-wait" and "--jit-threshold" are only for testing JIT implementation, they might be hidden in help.

I would like to make initial merge as simple as possible. You can separately file a request to have short options after we try the above interface.

[larskanis (Lars Kanis)]

Vladimirs command line option -j:t=X sets the number of parallel running compile tasks, which is similar to what -j is typically used for. And it is therefore an interesting option for users, not for testing only. However this option is not (yet) part of the current proposal.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

Vladimirs command line option -j:t=X sets the number of parallel running compile tasks, which is similar to what -j is typically used for.

Then using "-j" for non-parallel JIT-ing purpose may make it confusing. When JIT becomes stable and it is enabled by default, having "-jX" instead of "-j:t=X" would be very reasonable interface.

However this option is not (yet) part of the current proposal.

That's because I dropped it for simplicity at initial merge. We need extra exclusive control if we run multiple workers. In general, I don't like to make many complex changes at once. To distinguish problems easily, I would like to gradually add complex changes after we confirm the current changes are stable enough.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

having "-jX" instead of "-j:t=X" would be very reasonable interface.

I rethought that it's still aggressive to add it while we have --jit-xxx too. Never mind about that part.

[larskanis (Lars Kanis)]

I like your last proposal most (using --jit-X options). It would also allow this in the future:

    --jit [<threads>]  use MJIT with the number of parallel workers (default: 16)

... or even the short form -jX .

[vmakarov (Vladimir Makarov)]

k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) wrote:

The short form should be there for convenience IMHO

TBH I don't have strong preference on having the short versions or not. But I'm expecting that the only option normal user uses would be only "--jit" and others are basically for Vladimir and me. And I believe "--jit" would be short enough compared to "--disable-gems" and very straight-forward.

Anyway, I share the interface which was considered as reasonable at today's Ruby developers meeting at Tokyo:

  --jit       use MJIT with default options

MJIT options:
  --jit-cc=cc      C compiler to generate native code (gcc, clang)
  --jit-save-temps Save MJIT temporary files in $TMP or /tmp
  --jit-warnings   Enable printing MJIT warnings
  --jit-debug      Enable MJIT debugging (very slow)
  --jit-verbose=num
                   Print MJIT logs of level num or less to stderr
  --jit-max-cache-size=num
                   Maximum number of methods to be JIT-ed in a cache (default: 1000)
  --jit-wait       Synchronously wait for ISeq to be compiled (for testing)
  --jit-threshold=num
                   Number of calls to trigger JIT compilation (default: 5)

They look ok to me. I believe people at the developers meeting have the best experience with designing options for C-Ruby. I created original options mostly for my convenience to work on MJIT. I did not think about them as a final variant. Nevertheless I am glad that they are very close to mine.

I also think that in the future setting JIT features and params through environment variable(s) might improve JIT usage experience too.

As "--jit-wait" and "--jit-threshold" are only for testing JIT implementation, they might be hidden in help.

I would like to make initial merge as simple as possible. You can separately file a request to have short options after we try the above interface.

--jit-wait/--jit-threshold are very useful options for testers. They should be used to test JIT on ruby tests (e.g. make check) because without them JIT practically has no time to compile methods and run them. With these options all running methods can be compiled by JIT and executed. And this considerably improves MJIT test coverage although it makes ruby much slower.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

Vladimir, thank you for your opinion on this!

--jit-wait/--jit-threshold are very useful options for testers. They should be used to test JIT on ruby tests (e.g. make check) because without them JIT practically has no time to compile methods and run them. With these options all running methods can be compiled by JIT and executed. And this considerably improves MJIT test coverage although it makes ruby much slower.

Yes, I used the option against test-all for testing and it helped much to know what was actually not working.

As you said, it would take a lot of time to use it for test-all on CI. So, for now, I'm considering to add unit tests that start "ruby --jit-wait --jit-verbose=1" processes and test the stderr output. We should keep the balance between test time and coverage for the best maintainability.

[vmakarov (Vladimir Makarov)]

larskanis (Lars Kanis) wrote:

I like your last proposal most (using --jit-X options). It would also allow this in the future:

    --jit [<threads>]  use MJIT with the number of parallel workers (default: 16)

... or even the short form -jX .

I think 16 is too aggressive. It is not only worker threads (many of them will be in a wait state most of the time). It is also means 16 working gcc/clang processes and it will create a huge CPU load and big memory usage (even if gcc/clang code will be shared by all the gcc/clang processes and their data will be small because most compiled methods are small).

I think the default should be half or 1/4 of CPUs on machine because (some processors these days are hyper-threaded) or at least 1. It mean we need a code to find how many CPUs are on the machine. Until then I think 2 or 1 would be a reasonable choice as a default.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

I also think that in the future setting JIT features and params through environment variable(s) might improve JIT usage experience too.

Ah, that's a topic that was discussed today too. I'm not going to have them at initial merge, but adding them would be reasonable because we already have such interface for GC parameters.

[vmakarov (Vladimir Makarov)]

k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) wrote:

Vladimir, thank you for your opinion on this!

You are welcome. You are doing a great job.

--jit-wait/--jit-threshold are very useful options for testers. They should be used to test JIT on ruby tests (e.g. make check) because without them JIT practically has no time to compile methods and run them. With these options all running methods can be compiled by JIT and executed. And this considerably improves MJIT test coverage although it makes ruby much slower.

Yes, I used the option against test-all for testing and it helps much to know what is actually not working.

As you said, it would take a lot of time to use it for test-all on CI. So, for now, I'm considering to add unit tests that start "ruby --jit-wait --jit-verbose=1" processes and test the stderr output. We should keep the balance between test time and coverage for the best maintainability.

Agree, your proposal has a lot of sense.

[normalperson (Eric Wong)]

[e-mail] wrote:

It mean we need a code to find how many CPUs are on the machine.

We can reuse Etc.nprocessors for most systems in ext/etc/etc.c

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

• Status changed from Open to Assigned
• Assignee set to k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

• Status changed from Assigned to Closed

Applied in changeset trunk|r62197.

---

mjit_compile.c: merge initial JIT compiler

which has been developed by Takashi Kokubun takashikkbn@gmail as
YARV-MJIT. Many of its bugs are fixed by wanabe [e-mail].

This JIT compiler is designed to be a safe migration path to introduce
JIT compiler to MRI. So this commit does not include any bytecode
changes or dynamic instruction modifications, which are done in original
MJIT.

This commit even strips off some aggressive optimizations from
YARV-MJIT, and thus it's slower than YARV-MJIT too. But it's still
fairly faster than Ruby 2.5 in some benchmarks (attached below).

Note that this JIT compiler passes make test, make test-all, make test-spec without JIT, and even with JIT. Not only it's perfectly safe
with JIT disabled because it does not replace VM instructions unlike
MJIT, but also with JIT enabled it stably runs Ruby applications
including Rails applications.

I'm expecting this version as just "initial" JIT compiler. I have many
optimization ideas which are skipped for initial merging, and you may
easily replace this JIT compiler with a faster one by just replacing
mjit_compile.c. mjit_compile interface is designed for the purpose.

common.mk: update dependencies for mjit_compile.c.

internal.h: declare rb_vm_insn_addr2insn for MJIT.

vm.c: exclude some definitions if -DMJIT_HEADER is provided to
compiler. This avoids to include some functions which take a long time
to compile, e.g. vm_exec_core. Some of the purpose is achieved in
transform_mjit_header.rb (see IGNORED_FUNCTIONS) but others are
manually resolved for now. Load mjit_helper.h for MJIT header.
mjit_helper.h: New. This is a file used only by JIT-ed code. I'll
refactor mjit_call_cfunc later.
vm_eval.c: add some #ifdef switches to skip compiling some functions
like Init_vm_eval.

win32/mkexports.rb: export thread/ec functions, which are used by MJIT.

include/ruby/defines.h: add MJIT_FUNC_EXPORTED macro alis to clarify
that a function is exported only for MJIT.

array.c: export a function used by MJIT.
bignum.c: ditto.
class.c: ditto.
compile.c: ditto.
error.c: ditto.
gc.c: ditto.
hash.c: ditto.
iseq.c: ditto.
numeric.c: ditto.
object.c: ditto.
proc.c: ditto.
re.c: ditto.
st.c: ditto.
string.c: ditto.
thread.c: ditto.
variable.c: ditto.
vm_backtrace.c: ditto.
vm_insnhelper.c: ditto.
vm_method.c: ditto.

I would like to improve maintainability of function exports, but I
believe this way is acceptable as initial merging if we clarify the
new exports are for MJIT (so that we can use them as TODO list to fix)
and add unit tests to detect unresolved symbols.
I'll add unit tests of JIT compilations in succeeding commits.

Author: Takashi Kokubun [e-mail]
Contributor: wanabe [e-mail]

Part of [Feature #14235]

---

• Known issues
  • Code generated by gcc is faster than clang. The benchmark may be worse
    in macOS. Following benchmark result is provided by gcc w/ Linux.
  • Performance is decreased when Google Chrome is running
  • JIT can work on MinGW, but it doesn't improve performance at least
    in short running benchmark.
  • Currently it doesn't perform well with Rails. We'll try to fix this
    before release.

---

• Benchmark reslts

Benchmarked with:
Intel 4.0GHz i7-4790K with 16GB memory under x86-64 Ubuntu 8 Cores

• 2.0.0-p0: Ruby 2.0.0-p0
• r62186: Ruby trunk (early 2.6.0), before MJIT changes
• JIT off: On this commit, but without --jit option
• JIT on: On this commit, and with --jit option

** Optcarrot fps

Benchmark: https://github.com/mame/optcarrot

	2.0.0-p0	r62186	JIT off	JIT on
fps	37.32	51.46	51.31	58.88
vs 2.0.0	1.00x	1.38x	1.37x	1.58x

** MJIT benchmarks

Benchmark: https://github.com/benchmark-driver/mjit-benchmarks
(Original: https://github.com/vnmakarov/ruby/tree/rtl_mjit_branch/MJIT-benchmarks)

	2.0.0-p0	r62186	JIT off	JIT on
aread	1.00	1.09	1.07	2.19
aref	1.00	1.13	1.11	2.22
aset	1.00	1.50	1.45	2.64
awrite	1.00	1.17	1.13	2.20
call	1.00	1.29	1.26	2.02
const2	1.00	1.10	1.10	2.19
const	1.00	1.11	1.10	2.19
fannk	1.00	1.04	1.02	1.00
fib	1.00	1.32	1.31	1.84
ivread	1.00	1.13	1.12	2.43
ivwrite	1.00	1.23	1.21	2.40
mandelbrot	1.00	1.13	1.16	1.28
meteor	1.00	2.97	2.92	3.17
nbody	1.00	1.17	1.15	1.49
nest-ntimes	1.00	1.22	1.20	1.39
nest-while	1.00	1.10	1.10	1.37
norm	1.00	1.18	1.16	1.24
nsvb	1.00	1.16	1.16	1.17
red-black	1.00	1.02	0.99	1.12
sieve	1.00	1.30	1.28	1.62
trees	1.00	1.14	1.13	1.19
while	1.00	1.12	1.11	2.41

** Discourse's script/bench.rb

Benchmark: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/blob/v1.8.7/script/bench.rb

NOTE: Rails performance was somehow a little degraded with JIT for now.
We should fix this.
(At least I know opt_aref is performing badly in JIT and I have an idea
to fix it. Please wait for the fix.)

*** JIT off
Your Results: (note for timings- percentile is first, duration is second in millisecs)

categories_admin:
50: 17
75: 18
90: 22
99: 29
home_admin:
50: 21
75: 21
90: 27
99: 40
topic_admin:
50: 17
75: 18
90: 22
99: 32
categories:
50: 35
75: 41
90: 43
99: 77
home:
50: 39
75: 46
90: 49
99: 95
topic:
50: 46
75: 52
90: 56
99: 101

*** JIT on
Your Results: (note for timings- percentile is first, duration is second in millisecs)

categories_admin:
50: 19
75: 21
90: 25
99: 33
home_admin:
50: 24
75: 26
90: 30
99: 35
topic_admin:
50: 19
75: 20
90: 25
99: 30
categories:
50: 40
75: 44
90: 48
99: 76
home:
50: 42
75: 48
90: 51
99: 89
topic:
50: 49
75: 55
90: 58
99: 99

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

I committed Vladimir's MJIT works in r62187 and r62189, and current YARV-MJIT in r62197. The problems in this ticket's description would be solved.

Right now I'm fixing trunk to improve portability, seeing RubyCI.

[vmakarov (Vladimir Makarov)]

On 02/04/2018 09:08 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

Issue #14235 has been updated by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun).

I committed Vladimir's MJIT works in r62187 and r62189, and current YARV-MJIT in r62197. The problems in this ticket's description would be solved.

Right now I'm fixing trunk to improve portability, seeing RubyCI.

Congratulations, Takashi!  Your energy and determination made it happen.

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

Thank you :)
I hope this will work well with your current project.