[luatex] Identifying why LuaTeX 2023 is slower than LuaTeX 2022

[Paulo Roberto Massa Cereda]

Thanks so much, Hans! I will do some further tests and report back!

Em seg., 28 de ago. de 2023 às 13:35, Hans Hagen <j.hagen at xs4all.nl> escreveu:
>
> On 8/28/2023 5:43 PM, Paulo Roberto Massa Cereda wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback, Hans! Apologies for the "vague" context, I
> > was in a hurry. I will try to provide more details as follows:
> >
> > My initial test was:
> >
> > --------8<--------
> > \documentclass{article}
> >
> > \usepackage{fontspec}
> >
> > \setmainfont[
> >      Extension=.ttf,
> >      Path=./fonts/,
> >      UprightFont=*-Regular,
> >      BoldFont=*-Bold,
> >      ItalicFont=*-Italic,
> >      BoldItalicFont=*-BoldItalic
> > ]{JetBrainsMono}
> >
> > \begin{document}
> >
> > Hello world.
> >
> > \end{document}
>
> So that is mostly measuring start up time.
>
> There is no real big difference between jetbrain regular and for
> instance dejavu sans mono):
>
> 1000 lorum paragraphs (standard 12pt context layout):
>
> % jetbrain : 200 pages 1.4 sec
> % dejavu   : 200 pages 1.2 sec
>
> if we just process the font (hbox)
>
> % jetbrain : 0.39 sec (0.15) sec for 200 pages
> % dejavu   : 0.36 sec (0.15) sec for 200 pages
>
> in base mode:
>
> % jetbrain : 0.15 sec for 200 pages
> % dejavu   : 0.15 sec for 200 pages
>
> (windows 10, luametatex with context, 2017 laptop with Intel(R) Xeon(R)
> CPU E3-1505M v6 @ 3.00GHz)
>
> Just to give you some comparison.
>
> > --------8<--------
> >
> > JetBrains Mono was obtained from here: https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/mono/
> >
> > By "cold cache" (and apologies in advance for probably using the wrong
> > term for describing), I was referring to deleting
> >
> > texmf-var/luatex-cache
> >
> > before each benchmark run. I did this with both TL 2022 and TL 2023.
> >
> > Then I tried with an actual document. I had Lorem Ipsum paragraphs
> > replicated more than 1000 times:
> >
> > ➜ wc -l test.tex
> > 2499 test.tex
> >
> > ➜ hyperfine -L year 2022,2023 --warmup 2
> > 'texlive/{year}/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex'
> > Benchmark 1: texlive/2022/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >    Time (mean ± σ):      2.881 s ±  0.021 s    [User: 2.771 s, System: 0.108 s]
> >    Range (min … max):    2.848 s …  2.907 s    10 runs
> >
> > Benchmark 2: texlive/2023/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >    Time (mean ± σ):      5.814 s ±  0.059 s    [User: 5.675 s, System: 0.128 s]
> >    Range (min … max):    5.760 s …  5.910 s    10 runs
>
> hm, so startup time differences can be neglected
>
> > Summary
> >    texlive/2022/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex ran
> >      2.02 ± 0.03 times faster than
> > texlive/2023/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >
> >   For HarfBuzz, I had the OTF font example above with:
>
> That could be changes in that library, right?
>
> > \setmainfont[
> >      Extension=.ttf,
> >      Path=./fonts/,
> >      UprightFont=*-Regular,
> >      BoldFont=*-Bold,
> >      ItalicFont=*-Italic,
> >      BoldItalicFont=*-BoldItalic,
> >      Renderer=HarfBuzz
> > ]{JetBrainsMono}
> >
> > For the normalize thing one, I had:
> >
> > \setmainfont[
> >      Extension=.ttf,
> >      Path=./fonts/,
> >      UprightFont=*-Regular,
> >      BoldFont=*-Bold,
> >      ItalicFont=*-Italic,
> >      BoldItalicFont=*-BoldItalic,
> >      RawFeature=-normalize
> > ]{JetBrainsMono}
> >
> > Marcel suggested me to update TL2022 luaotfload-tool to the latest
> > version as well, so I did:
> >
> > ➜ texlive/2022/bin/x86_64-linux/luaotfload-tool --version | grep
> > "luaotfload-tool version"
> > luaotfload-tool version: "3.24"
> >
> > ➜ texlive/2023/bin/x86_64-linux/luaotfload-tool --version | grep
> > "luaotfload-tool version"
> > luaotfload-tool version: "3.24"
> >
> > ➜ hyperfine -L year 2022,2023 --warmup 2
> > 'texlive/{year}/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex'
> > Benchmark 1: texlive/2022/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >    Time (mean ± σ):     689.6 ms ±   2.0 ms    [User: 588.9 ms, System: 100.1 ms]
> >    Range (min … max):   687.3 ms … 693.6 ms    10 runs
> >
> > Benchmark 2: texlive/2023/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >    Time (mean ± σ):      1.264 s ±  0.007 s    [User: 1.151 s, System: 0.112 s]
> >    Range (min … max):    1.254 s …  1.277 s    10 runs
> >
> > Summary
> >    texlive/2022/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex ran
> >      1.83 ± 0.01 times faster than
> > texlive/2023/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >
> > I also tried with \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}:
> >
> > ➜ hyperfine -L year 2022,2023 --warmup 2
> > 'texlive/{year}/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex'
> > Benchmark 1: texlive/2022/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >    Time (mean ± σ):     457.4 ms ±   3.1 ms    [User: 380.7 ms, System: 76.3 ms]
> >    Range (min … max):   452.8 ms … 463.6 ms    10 runs
> >
> > Benchmark 2: texlive/2023/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >    Time (mean ± σ):     893.9 ms ±   8.4 ms    [User: 805.5 ms, System: 88.0 ms]
> >    Range (min … max):   886.8 ms … 915.7 ms    10 runs
> >
> > Summary
> >    texlive/2022/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex ran
> >      1.95 ± 0.02 times faster than
> > texlive/2023/bin/x86_64-linux/lualatex test.tex
> >
> > I can create a GitHub repository with some tests for reproducibilty,
> > if it helps.
> >
> > I will try to compile the sources. Will report soon.
> best try that first because it might be that you have a subtoptimal
> binary or get bins from
>
> https://dl.contextgarden.net/build/luatex/
>
> (these are generated in the tex live setup so basically for older
> linuxes in order to be compatible)
>
> Hans
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
>                Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
>         tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>