[Pharo-project] new Cog VMs uploaded
kustos at gmx.net
Tue May 3 20:57:18 CEST 2011
On 03.05.2011 19:51, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Philippe Marschall <kustos at gmx.net
> <mailto:kustos at gmx.net>> wrote:
> On 29.04.2011 19:03, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Philippe Marschall
> <kustos at gmx.net
> <mailto:kustos at gmx.net>
> > <mailto:kustos at gmx.net
> <mailto:kustos at gmx.net>>> wrote:
> > On 27.04.2011 19 <tel:27.04.2011%2019>
> <tel:27.04.2011%2019>:23, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> > > Philippe,
> > >
> > > can you please profile before and after? This could
> very well
> > be to
> > > do with the additional cost of shallowCopy for contexts, but
> it is
> > > inevitable that a correct implementation is going to be more
> > > than the simple block-copy. The new implementation can be
> > > but we need to profile first to be sure we're tilting at the
> > > windmill.
> > What kind of profiling do you have in mind, MessageTally?
> > Yes, that would be fine. Thanks!
> OK, there you go. As you'll see the runtime is about the same, that's
> because we do more iterations in the same time. Also note the time we're
> spending in WriteStream >> #nextPutAll: with interestingly has a
> different growing behavior than WriteStream >> #nextPut: (only 25% vs
> 100%). I already raised the issue once but people argued that the
> current code is prefect.
> Hmmm. GC behaviour is very different. Also requestContext Also shows
> up in the 2382 profiles but not the 2370 traces. You'll need to dig a
> little deeper to account for these differences. I guess they could well
> be to do with the new (correct) MethodContext copying behaviour
> retaining more state and hence stressing the GC more.
What approach do you suggest should I take?
More information about the Pharo-project