Newest at the top
| 2026-03-10 12:03:43 +0100 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:cfba:7074:7dbc:e7e9) |
| 2026-03-10 12:00:28 +0100 | <Freakie> | and I'm not sure how exactly to troubleshoot that |
| 2026-03-10 12:00:20 +0100 | <Freakie> | what confuses me a little is that the algorithm has two parts that are supposed to be roughly equal in work intensity but according to my profiles (at least the eventlog2html renders of them), only one of the algorithms are truly "busy" in terms of allocations |
| 2026-03-10 11:58:30 +0100 | <Freakie> | obviously garbage collection is unavoidable but if the runtime explodes for reasons not directly related to the work itself (i.e., not following the asymptotics) then it should be fixed |
| 2026-03-10 11:57:33 +0100 | <Freakie> | jreicher it's "undesirable" in the sense that up to 3/4 of the actual runtime is spent not doing work but just garbage collection |
| 2026-03-10 11:56:58 +0100 | <Freakie> | I've thought about nursery size before but never got around to it, I guess I'll give it a try in not too long |
| 2026-03-10 11:55:31 +0100 | acidjnk | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e700e52576436b4620b4c2a8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 11:52:22 +0100 | acidjnk_new | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e700e547f0589d3e513577e0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) acidjnk |
| 2026-03-10 11:48:46 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2026-03-10 11:40:30 +0100 | <probie> | Freakie: does performance improve if you make the nursery bigger? (e.g. try something like `+RTS -A64m -RTS`) |
| 2026-03-10 11:39:41 +0100 | <jreicher> | Some things just have to be GCed; that's the nature of them. (Not the implementation, but the algorithm itself) |
| 2026-03-10 11:39:24 +0100 | marinelli | (~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) marinelli |
| 2026-03-10 11:39:21 +0100 | <jreicher> | Freakie: Just in case it helps, may I question why the garbage collection is "undesirable"? That might sound stupid, but what reason do you have to think it's not needed for your use case? |
| 2026-03-10 11:39:02 +0100 | marinelli | (~weechat@gateway/tor-sasl/marinelli) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-03-10 11:33:24 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 11:29:06 +0100 | danza | (~danza@user/danza) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 11:27:11 +0100 | danz32096 | (~danza@user/danza) danza |
| 2026-03-10 11:24:30 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 11:22:00 +0100 | comerijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
| 2026-03-10 11:21:58 +0100 | <Freakie> | unfortunately purity is pretty essential to what i'm trying to do, which is also why I'm having a difficult time brainstorming alternatives |
| 2026-03-10 11:19:43 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2026-03-10 11:16:53 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:5cb9:87bb:7dcb:d170) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 11:16:16 +0100 | <probie> | Without actually seeing the code, all anyone here can do is guess. If the situation allows it, try a priority queue backed by some kind of mutable STVector, since you'll be able to enqueue/dequeue without allocations (beyond the occasional allocation to resize the backing vector) |
| 2026-03-10 11:11:08 +0100 | dhil | (~dhil@5.151.29.141) dhil |
| 2026-03-10 11:08:01 +0100 | xff0x | (~xff0x@fsb6a9491c.tkyc517.ap.nuro.jp) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 11:06:33 +0100 | fp1 | (~Thunderbi@2001:708:20:1406::10c5) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 11:02:26 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:5cb9:87bb:7dcb:d170) |
| 2026-03-10 11:00:28 +0100 | <Freakie> | for me the issue is just having been told multiple times that spending >50% of the runtime on GC suggests that something is wrong with the program ,so I was hoping to have some better way of evaluating that statement |
| 2026-03-10 10:59:38 +0100 | <Freakie> | otherwise I should be able to take advantage of my data structure to offload a lot of the work to using lists which should prevent a lot of rebalancing (and therefore allocations) |
| 2026-03-10 10:58:42 +0100 | <Freakie> | but i'm not sure if that's the right track |
| 2026-03-10 10:58:33 +0100 | <Freakie> | I was considering maybe restructuring my program to reuse the priority queue between different stages of the application so the pointer is kept alive throghout |
| 2026-03-10 10:58:01 +0100 | <Freakie> | the space cost just seems absurdly high still |
| 2026-03-10 10:56:19 +0100 | <probie> | Inserting an element is always going to cause an allocation (or more). You can't really avoid that without mutation (or linearity) |
| 2026-03-10 10:54:40 +0100 | <Freakie> | my fear is that the priority queues just have to handle too much data but on the input sizes I need to handle to the point that rebalancing is infeasible |
| 2026-03-10 10:52:43 +0100 | <Freakie> | they both seem to have the same allocation rate from what I've been able to gather from experimentation |
| 2026-03-10 10:52:09 +0100 | <Freakie> | mostly I've just used Data.Set, but I've also played around with MultiSet and the MinQueue from pqueue |
| 2026-03-10 10:51:50 +0100 | <Freakie> | I've used a typeclass as an abstraction over different implementations |
| 2026-03-10 10:50:52 +0100 | <probie> | How is the priority queue implemented? |
| 2026-03-10 10:45:31 +0100 | danza | (~danza@user/danza) danza |
| 2026-03-10 10:41:59 +0100 | danza | (~danza@user/danza) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 10:41:31 +0100 | <Freakie> | over half my runtime is still spent on garbage collecting and further profiling suggests that something like 90% of all of my allocations are spent on updating a priority queue (a lot of elements are inserted). I'm not sure I can do much to help my situation but if anyone could lend some insight again I'd be grateful |
| 2026-03-10 10:39:33 +0100 | <Freakie> | hi, I was here a few days ago with questions about profiling my program involving BDD algorithms (in case anyone was there and remember) |
| 2026-03-10 10:35:27 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2026-03-10 10:31:23 +0100 | Freakie | (~Freakie@37.96.7.244) |
| 2026-03-10 10:29:53 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2026-03-10 10:29:53 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@2a02:2455:8656:7100:2149:c35e:cd23:4e9a) (Changing host) |
| 2026-03-10 10:29:53 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@2a02:2455:8656:7100:2149:c35e:cd23:4e9a) |
| 2026-03-10 10:21:30 +0100 | chele | (~chele@user/chele) chele |
| 2026-03-10 10:18:56 +0100 | chele | (~chele@user/chele) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-03-10 10:16:56 +0100 | olivial | (~benjaminl@user/benjaminl) benjaminl |