3 ms·

I think that's a good point and was also heavily commented on when Google's Unladden Swallow released its benchmark numbers (IIRC, for the django benchmark its

by sb 15y ago

I think that's a good point and was also heavily commented on when Google's Unladden Swallow released its benchmark numbers (IIRC, for the django benchmark its binary size grew to 800 megs.) Probably that was even a reason they stopped working on it (there was a link somewhere, but I cannot find it right now.) Furthermore, I think this "problem" is attributable to jit-compilation in general, since you have to store the code somewhere. The situation was/is somehow similar to the JVM's memory requirements. An interesting alternative to code generation is to optimize interpreters instead.

sandGorgon 15y ago
with SSDs catching up (in terms of price/gb) to hdds, could you possibly use SSD as a jit-cache ? processors are the most power hungry part of a machine, and considering cooling is the biggest bottleneck in a modern datacenter, I wonder if SSDs acting as caches could amplify a processor's power.
- wmf 15y ago
  Sure, you can use an SSD as swap (unless you're in the cloud where SSDs have inexplicably not been invented yet).
- ars 15y ago
  Putting swap on the SSD will make it much faster. On the other hand it will wear it out much faster as well. So if it's worth it depends on your workload.
dmpk2k 15y ago
I'm not sure it's intrinsic to JIT. LuaJIT's footprint is no larger than the normal Lua VM last I looked. It has more to do with how you pack your data and how much pressure you put on the GC (thus requiring more memory).