I tried it just now; it made no difference.  Nevertheless, thank you
for you help and time!

On Mar 31, 9:38 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you try
> (int (mask8 (. buf__2572__auto__ (get))))
>
> ?
>
> Your macro should like this:
>
> (defmacro make-reader
>   [get-fn mask-fn]
>   `(fn [#^ByteBuffer buf# len#]
>      (if (= len# 1)
>        (~mask-fn (. buf# (~get-fn)))
>        (let [#^"[I" arr# (int-array len#)]
>          (dotimes [i# len#]
>            (aset-int arr# i# (int (~mask-fn (. buf# (~get-fn))))))
>          arr#))))
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Vincent Foley <vfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I tried surrounding the call to the (. buf# (get)) method and putting
> > the coercion directly inside the mask8 and mask16 functions.  Neither
> > worked.  I want to mention at this point that I have *warn-on-
> > reflection* set to true for the little script that uses the library
> > and it doesn't report any call to methods that it can't resolve.
>
> > Here's the complete -Xprof output, if it helps.
>
> > Flat profile of 176.10 secs (11351 total ticks): main
>
> >  Interpreted + native   Method
> >  4.5%   511  +     0    java.lang.Integer.hashCode
> >  1.4%   160  +     0    java.lang.Integer.intValue
> >  0.8%    91  +     0    starcraft.replay.unpack
> > $decode_command_block__94.invoke
> >  0.7%    80  +     0    clojure.lang.Numbers.int_array
> >  0.2%    25  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentVector.pushTail
> >  0.1%    15  +     2    java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1
> >  0.1%    16  +     0
> > hu.belicza.andras.bwhf.control.BinReplayUnpacker.esi28
> >  0.1%     4  +    11    clojure.core__init.load
> >  0.1%    10  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentVector.cons
> >  0.1%     8  +     0    starcraft.replay.actions$fn__71.invoke
> >  0.1%     8  +     0
> > hu.belicza.andras.bwhf.control.BinReplayUnpacker.unpackSection
> >  0.1%     0  +     7    java.lang.reflect.Array.setInt
> >  0.1%     7  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentHashMap
> > $BitmapIndexedNode.create
> >  0.1%     7  +     0    clojure.lang.RestFn.invoke
> >  0.1%     7  +     0    clojure.lang.RestFn.invoke
> >  0.1%     7  +     0    starcraft.replay.unpack
> > $decode_commands__99.invoke
> >  0.1%     7  +     0    starcraft.replay.parse
> > $parse_buffer__53$fn__56.invoke
> >  0.1%     6  +     0    clojure.lang.AFn.applyToHelper
> >  0.1%     6  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap.assoc
> >  0.1%     6  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentHashMap
> > $BitmapIndexedNode.assoc
> >  0.0%     0  +     5    java.lang.reflect.Array.newArray
> >  0.0%     0  +     5    java.lang.Class.forName0
> >  0.0%     0  +     5    java.util.zip.Inflater.inflateBytes
> >  0.0%     5  +     0    java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.<init>
> >  0.0%     5  +     0    java.util.Arrays.copyOfRange
> >  10.9%  1157  +    76    Total interpreted (including elided)
>
> >     Compiled + native   Method
> >  10.4%  1183  +     1    starcraft.replay.parse$fn__23$fn__49.invoke
> >  10.0%  1123  +    17    starcraft.replay.unpack
> > $decode_command_block__94.invoke
> >  9.2%  1043  +     0    clojure.core$next__3096.invoke
> >  8.9%  1014  +     0    starcraft.replay.parse
> > $parse_buffer__53$fn__56.invoke
> >  5.5%   626  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap.assoc
> >  4.3%   474  +    17    clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap.assoc
> >  4.1%   464  +     7    clojure.lang.RestFn.invoke
> >  2.9%   333  +     0    clojure.lang.Cons.next
> >  2.5%   288  +     0    clojure.lang.RT.seq
> >  2.4%   269  +     0    clojure.lang.AFn.applyToHelper
> >  2.2%   249  +     0
> > hu.belicza.andras.bwhf.control.BinReplayUnpacker.unpackRepChunk
> >  1.8%   202  +     0    clojure.core$seq__3112.invoke
> >  1.6%   174  +     3    clojure.lang.RestFn.applyTo
> >  1.3%   140  +     2    clojure.lang.APersistentMap.cons
> >  1.2%   130  +     1    clojure.core$spread__3225.invoke
> >  1.1%   127  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentStructMap.valAt
> >  0.8%    93  +     0    clojure.core$reduce__3304.invoke
> >  0.6%    66  +     2    starcraft.replay.unpack
> > $decode_commands__99.invoke
> >  0.6%    63  +     0    clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap.valAt
> >  0.1%    13  +     1    clojure.core$conj__3100.invoke
> >  0.1%     9  +     0    clojure.lang.APersistentMap.invoke
> >  0.1%     3  +     6    starcraft.replay.parse
> > $fn__23$read_shorts__37.invoke
> >  0.1%     8  +     0    clojure.core$nthnext__4405.invoke
> >  0.1%     0  +     7    clojure.lang.ArraySeq.next
> >  0.0%     0  +     5    clojure.lang.APersistentVector.assoc
> >  72.3%  8126  +    76    Total compiled (including elided)
>
> >         Stub + native   Method
> >  15.1%     0  +  1711    java.lang.reflect.Array.setInt
> >  1.2%     0  +   135    java.lang.System.arraycopy
> >  0.3%     0  +    31    java.lang.reflect.Array.set
> >  0.1%     0  +    15    java.io.FileInputStream.readBytes
> >  0.1%     0  +    13    java.lang.reflect.Array.get
> >  0.1%     0  +     7    java.lang.Object.getClass
> >  0.0%     0  +     1    java.lang.Thread.currentThread
> >  16.9%     0  +  1913    Total stub
>
> >  Thread-local ticks:
> >  0.0%     1             Class loader
> >  0.0%     2             Unknown: no last frame
>
> > Flat profile of 0.01 secs (1 total ticks): DestroyJavaVM
>
> >  Thread-local ticks:
> > 100.0%     1             Blocked (of total)
>
> > Global summary of 176.12 seconds:
> > 100.0% 11603             Received ticks
> >  2.1%   246             Received GC ticks
> >  4.3%   495             Compilation
> >  0.0%     2             Other VM operations
> >  0.0%     1             Class loader
> >  0.0%     2             Unknown code
> > 176.257 secs
>
> > On Mar 31, 8:57 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks to cl-format:
>
> > > (fn
> > >  [buf__2572__auto__ len__2573__auto__]
> > >  (if (= len__2573__auto__ 1)
> > >      (mask8 (. buf__2572__auto__ (get)))
> > >      (let [arr__2574__auto__ (int-array len__2573__auto__)]
> > >        (dotimes
> > >    [i__2575__auto__ len__2573__auto__]
> > >  (aset-int
> > >           arr__2574__auto__
> > >           i__2575__auto__
> > >           (mask8 (. buf__2572__auto__ (get)))))
> > >        arr__2574__auto__)))
>
> > > This is the expansion for (make-reader get mask8), where were you
> > attempting
> > > putting the int coercion to to the mask-fn?
>
> > > David
>
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Vincent Foley <vfo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > I tried using aset-int and I tried using int to coerce the result of
> > > > mask-fn, the input argument to mask-fn and few other things, but none
> > > > of that seems to make a difference so far.  Mind you, this is an
> > > > aspect of Clojure that I find a little confusing, so I'm just putting
> > > > int calls here and there and looking at what happens.
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 10:46 am, Christophe Grand <christo...@cgrand.net> wrote:
> > > > > Did you try to coerce the result of (~mask-fn ...) with int?
> > > > > (or use aset-int as suggested by David)
>
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Vincent Foley <vfo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > No, but in my defense I did not know such a function existed :)
> >  I'll
> > > > > > give it a whirl and report back!
>
> > > > > > On Mar 31, 9:57 am, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Did you try using aset-int instead of aset?
>
> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Vincent Foley <vfo...@gmail.com
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > For those interested, I managed to improve the performance of
> > my
> > > > > > > > original program from 2 minutes 40 seconds to decode 1000+
> > files
> > > > down
> > > > > > > > to 2 minutes.  I'm still far from my goal, but it's an
> > improvement,
> > > > > > > > especially since the code is shorter and (IMO) cleaner.  You
> > can
> > > > see
> > > > > > > > it here:
>
> > > >http://bitbucket.org/gnuvince/clj-starcraft/src/tip/src/starcraft/rep.
> > > > > > ..
>
> > > > > > > > And here's another question, running the program with -Xprof
> > shows
> > > > > > > > that nearly 20% of my execution time is spent calling
> > > > > > > > java.lang.reflect.Array.set.  Is there something wrong with the
> > way
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > type hint my array in make-reader?
>
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>
> > > > > > > > Vincent.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:12 pm, Vincent Foley <vfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
>
> > > > > > > > > For the past few days, I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to
> > make
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > application I wrote faster.  A Java program that performs,
> > more
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > less, the same task takes 12 seconds (on my machine) to parse
> > > > 1000
> > > > > > > > > files; my Clojure program takes nearly 3 minutes.  This more
> > than
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > order of magnitude slower!  Using the profiling tools
> > available
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the JVM, I quickly determined which function was the
> > costliest.
> > > >  I
> > > > > > > > > copied it into a simple script file to profile it in
> > isolation.
> > > >  I
> > > > > > > > > have made the script and the profile results (long!)
> > available at
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > URL:http://gist.github.com/82136
>
> > > > > > > > > I'm finding the results puzzling: is dereferencing a var
> > *that*
> > > > > > > > > expensive?  Can anyone tell me if they see something
> > > > fundamentally
> > > > > > > > > wrong with my approach that would explain this abysmal
> > > > performance?
>
> > > > > > > > > Thank you,
>
> > > > > > > > > Vincent.
>
> > > > > > > > > P.S.: I am using Sun's JVM 1.6.0_10 as shipped in Ubuntu
> > Ibex.
> > > >  My
> > > > > > > > > machine is an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ with 3 GB of RAM.
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to