4 ms·
Yes that's the correct benchmark. Do you have evidence that the situation has changed? Last I checked it still remains the case that modules inhibit parallelis
by Kranar 6y ago
Yes that's the correct benchmark.
Do you have evidence that the situation has changed? Last I checked it still remains the case that modules inhibit parallelism and hence result in slower builds in most practical work loads. But of course if you have evidence the contrary I'd be happy to see it.
- gsliepen 6y agoI don't know of any newer benchmarks. However, I'm reading the results differently I guess, because the results show that with 128 threads, modules become slower only when the DAG depth is higher than 29, and that's quite a large depth! It also looks like each source file used in the benchmark only imports other modules and declares 300 variables, but nothing else. Practical workloads will have more interesting stuff in the source files, so I would expect the impact of module loading to be less, so more can be done in parallel.
- account4mypc 6y ago> with 128 threads, modules become slower only when the DAG depth is higher than 29 yeah, but the same graph never shows modules being faster... it only ever shows them being the same or slower. If I'm going to put in all that work, the result should be *faster*