-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
Use takeset
to make loading zero-copy
#2143
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Awesome to see this moving. What's memtestmsp.py doing? |
This skips the extra copy for a tree sequence, which I'll deal with separately. |
Nice! So we're seeing a factor of 2 reduction in memory except for this offset casting thing? |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2143 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.30% 93.29% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 27 27
Lines 25818 25895 +77
Branches 1163 1163
==========================================
+ Hits 24090 24159 +69
- Misses 1698 1706 +8
Partials 30 30
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
7b5d5a4
to
c3b7c13
Compare
All the tests finally pass here. Some feedback on how I've solved the edge cases (e.g. |
Let's get #2032 squared away first, will make it easier to see the new stuff here. I think we're pretty sold on the takeset idea basically working anyway, right? |
c3b7c13
to
406e1d5
Compare
Brilliant! So all working as expected now then? (Analysis super helpful btw) |
Yes, I believe so! It has been useful to break all this down and check we understand it all. Basically, the 0.05seconds after 0.2 are snipped out and don't happen, so as well as the memory usage falling the load is quicker! |
takeset
to make loading zero-copy
@Mergifyio rebase |
✅ Branch has been successfully rebased |
406e1d5
to
b6181a7
Compare
Now that I've got a clean diff I can see a couple of errors, will fix today so don't review yet! |
b6181a7
to
1d61621
Compare
@jeromekelleher Ok! Ready for review. |
e847af2
to
1481630
Compare
@jeromekelleher I've made the changes we discussed - in doing so it revealed that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great, let's merge!
1481630
to
df4f635
Compare
Fixes #2131
Here is a comparison of this main and this branch's memory use (main first):


Almost all of the remaining overhead is due to casting offsets up to 64bit, which uses 3x their size, with that off we get:
