[Python-Dev] [GSoC] Developing a benchmark suite (for Python 3.x)

[Jesse Noller]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 00:36, Anthony Scopatz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/04/2011 22:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:32:24 -0400
>>> Tres Seaver<tseaver at palladion.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, we are talking about building "speed.python.org" to test
>>>>> the speed of python interpreters, over time, and alongside one another
>>>>> - cython *is not* an interpreter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cython is out of scope for this.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it out of scope to use the benchmarks and test harness to answer
>>>> questions like "can we use Cython to provide optional optimizations for
>>>> the stdlib"?  I can certainly see value in havng an objective way to
>>>> compare the macro benchmark performance of a Cython-optimized CPython
>>>> vs. a vanilla CPython, as well as vs. PyPY, Jython, or IronPython.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Assuming someone wants to take care of the Cython side of
>>> things, I don't think there's any reason to exclude it under the
>>> dubious reason that it's "not an interpreter".
>>> (would you exclude Psyco, if it was still alive?)
>>>
>>
>> Well, sure - but within the scope of a GSOC project limiting it to "core
>> python" seems like a more realistic goal.
>>
>> Adding cython later shouldn't be an issue if someone is willing to do the
>> work.
>
> Jesse, I understand that we are talking about the benchmarks on
> speed.pypy.org.  The current suite, and correct me if I
> am wrong, is completely written in pure python so that any of the
> 'interpreters' may run them.
> My point, which I stand by, was that during the initial phase (where
> benchmarks are defined) that the Cython crowd
> should have a voice.  This should have an enriching effect on the whole
> benchmarking task since they have
> thought about this issue in a way that is largely orthogonal to the methods
> PyPy developed.  I think it
> would be a mistake to leave Cython out of the scoping study.
>
> Personally I think the Gsoc project should just take the pypy suite and run
> with that - bikeshedding about what benchmarks to include is going to make
> it hard to make progress. We can have fun with that discussion once we have
> the infrastructure and *some* good benchmarks in place (and the pypy ones
> are good ones).
>
> So I'm still with Jesse on this one. If there is any "discussion phase" as
> part of the Gsoc project it should be very strictly bounded by time.
>

What michael said: My goal is is to get speed.pypy.org ported to be
able to be used by $N interpreters, for $Y sets of performance
numbers. I'm trying to constrain the problem, and the initial
deployment so we don't spend the next year meandering about. It should
be sufficient to port the benchmarks from speed.pypy.org, and any
deltas from http://hg.python.org/benchmarks/ to Python 3 and the
framework that runs the tests to start.

I don't care if we eventually run cython, psyco, parrot, etc. But the
focus at the language summit, and the continued focus of me getting
the hardware via the PSF to host this on performance/speed.python.org
is tightly focused on the pypy, ironpython, jython and cpython
interpreters.

Let's just get our basics done first before we go all crazy with adding stuff :)

jesse