From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp21.mail.ru (smtp21.mail.ru [94.100.179.250])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AE7D469710
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Wed,  6 May 2020 15:53:21 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 15:53:07 +0300
From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200506125307.2eixpz4x64i2sfcm@tkn_work_nb>
References: <20191114115020.21091-1-maria.khaydich@tarantool.org>
 <1583942274.319390956@f377.i.mail.ru>
 <20200312132931.GA30900@atlas> <1584041112.66796082@f172.i.mail.ru>
 <20200312200024.GA11476@atlas>
 <20200318222635.GG6392@tarantool.org> <20200319071920.GA3227@atlas>
 <20200506111706.m6vxgduyaa3ay3mr@tkn_work_nb>
 <20200506114921.GB1859@atlas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200506114921.GB1859@atlas>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] box: make box.cfg idempotent
 function
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:49:21PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org> [20/05/06 14:17]:
> > https://gist.github.com/Totktonada/407855389ed4da93bf0175cf8a11c7b9
> > 
> > I made those measurements on fixed CPU frequency and 10 times run each
> > implementation 10 times: 300 runs at whole. I see that results becomes
> > worse for all implementations from run to run. Looks strange.
> 
> Try with jit off?

Are there any production setup with jit.off()? This measurement would be
artificial I think.

Anyway, I collected the results and they are quite noisy again (~10%
variation). I would not say anything based on them. But in average ffi
call gives -0.5% (worse) and ffi call with caching -1.0% from the
baseline (master). Maybe it is just noise.

WBR, Alexander Turenko.