Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26812
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.162 as permitted sender)
To: "'Sara Golemon'" <pollita@php.net>,
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Cc: "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:57:02 +0300
Message-ID: <000001c71936$076ef8b0$6e02a8c0@thinkpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4573B6BC.1030602@php.net>
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Function call speedup (CV applied to functions)
From: dmitry@zend.com ("Dmitry Stogov")
References: <4573B6BC.1030602@php.net>

Hi Sara,

Interesting patch.

We had very similar idea in the past.
BTW it is possible to optimize function calls mach more.
Not only ZEND_DO_FCALL but also ZEND_INIT_FCALL_BY_NAME can be optimized,
and we can reuse the same cache entries for all op_arrays from the same PHP
file.

I'll make a patch and send it to you in fey days.

Thanks. Dmitry.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sara Golemon [mailto:pollita@php.net] 
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:49 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Function call speedup (CV applied to functions)
> 
> 
> It's been a concept stuck in my mind since I first looked 
> into ZE2.1 and 
> saw what compiled variables were, and a recent blog post 
> (http://php100.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/optimizations/) (which got 
> picked up by planet PHP) got my wheels spinning again.  Tonight I 
> decided to actually sit down and see what benefit could be 
> milked from 
> such an endeavor and what it's maintenance cost would be.
> 
> The attached patch shows what I've tossed together for HEAD and the 
> benchmark I've run against it do show some appreciable gains...
> 
> Based on this code snippet, I saw a consistent gain of 
> aproximately 18%: for($i = 0; $i < 10000000; $i++) pi();
> 
> I chose the pi() function as it (A) would actually favor the 
> unpatched 
> approach, being quick to hash and strcmp.  It also (B) 
> performs minimal 
> actual work, simply returning a constant value, thus leaving 
> as much of 
> the execution time to the matter being tested as possible.
> 
> Of course, this isn't a "normal use" example, and it doesn't address 
> dynamic function calls or method calls.  I also havn't looked 
> into class 
> resolution yet, but this is a good spot to begin discussion from.
> 
> Thoughts anyone?
> 
> -Sara
>