Hi Doru,
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com wrote:
Hi Eliot,
Thanks for looking at this.
Please let us know what support you need, or what kind of experiments we can do on our side.
What I want most of all is a test case that I can run on Mac. I'm assuming that I can just copy the job that Vincent mentioned in his email and use that as a test case. Do you see any issues with that? If so, how do I get a really bug MOOSE test case to run on Mac?
Cheers, Doru
On Jan 24, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I'll take a look early this week. There's clearly a bug; the Spur GC is /not/ collecting those dictionaries :-( (thanks Stephan!). Assuming the bug is fixed times should come down (see below). It may be that the bug in Slang that I introduced in December has broken things because I don't see these symptoms in my daily work (but I use the most up-to-date VM version possible ;-) ). But I'm not in denial and look forward to using MOOSE as a good stress case.
I do want to say that the GC is not complete. Right now we have a scavenger that works well, and a global GC that has a slow compaction algorithm, and hence there are significant pauses. For example here's what I see as typical in using SPur for VMMaker work:
memory 160,432,128 bytes old 153,658,624 bytes (95.8%) young 4,838,224 bytes (3%) used 127,009,928 bytes (79.2%) free 28,126,456 bytes (17.5%) GCs 7,265 (?? ms between GCs) full 36 totalling 13,229 ms (0% uptime), avg 367.5 ms incr 7,229 totalling 6,546 ms (0% uptime), avg 0.9 ms tenures 3,589,063 (avg 0 GCs/tenure)
(There's no uptime in the above stats because we're still transitioning Squeak to the 64-bit clock and there are consequently bugs in computing uptime).
The plan is to add an incremental global GC so this work is broken up into much smaller pieces. I don't want to see 700ms pauses in global GC; one can't do game animation with that. So an incremental mark-sweep is needed. There are two nice papers we're considering, one from Lua and one for a truly concurrent collector. But time is pressing, so if anyone out there knows GC and is interested in helping this is a nicely self-contained project for which we'd love to have volunteers.
_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
On Jan 24, 2016, at 3:43 AM, Vincent BLONDEAU <
vincent.blondeau@polytech-lille.net> wrote:
Hi,
I made the benchmarks with the files you provided. I have more or less
the
same magnitude: Version 504: 0:00:01:09.021 Version 1175: 0:00:02:37.507
However, by launching it in the time profiler (MooseModel new importFromMSEStream: (StandardFileStream readOnlyFileNamed: 'd:/ArgoUML-0-34.mse')), it takes 504: 1 min 55 1175: 4 min 25 Well there is a delta...
After investigation, the standard process has almost the same duration
(120
secs for prespur and 140 secs for spur). But, there is a large difference in GC time:
504: not spur **Memory** old +144,822,000 bytes young -8,293,660 bytes used +136,528,340 bytes free -104,186,788 bytes
**GCs** full 1 totalling 965ms (1.0% uptime), avg 965.0ms incr 3264 totalling 42,279ms (33.0% uptime), avg 13.0ms tenures 2,497 (avg 1 GCs/tenure) root table 0 overflows
1175: spur **Memory** old +0 bytes young +340,048 bytes used +340,048 bytes free -340,048 bytes **GCs** full 7 totalling 145,003ms (66.0% uptime), avg 20715.0ms incr 3288 totalling 30,912ms (14.0% uptime), avg 9.0ms tenures 7,146,505 (avg 0 GCs/tenure) root table 0 overflows
Total GC time 504: 43 secs 1175: 176 secs
See the performance reports attached.
I let VM people take care of the issue ;)
Cheers, Vincent
-----Original Message----- From: moose-dev-bounces@list.inf.unibe.ch [mailto:moose-dev-bounces@list.inf.unibe.ch] On Behalf Of Tudor Girba Sent: dimanche 24 janvier 2016 09:08 To: Moose-related development Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: mse loading looks slower :(
Hi,
I am talking about the difference between Moose 6 images:
- October 7:
https://ci.inria.fr/moose/job/moose-6.0/504/artifact/moose-6.0.zip
- yesterday:
https://ci.inria.fr/moose/job/moose-6.0/1175/artifact/moose-6.0.zip
Multiple things did change, but not in Moose. In the end, I would like
to
understand where the slowness comes. Maybe it comes from Spur itself,
but
maybe it comes from somewhere else.
Cheers, Doru
On Jan 24, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <
marianopeck@gmail.com>
wrote:
Doru...just to be sure it is not a Pharo (image change), when you said
before and after Spur, do you mean a Pharo 5.0 exactly (just before
Spur)
and a Pharo JUST after it? Otherwise, the slowness may come from the difference between the 2 Pharos you are running.
Cheers,
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Tudor Girba tudor@tudorgirba.com
wrote:
Hi,
I am doing some performance testing of Moose with the Spur VM on Mac.
I tried to load an MSE file with ArgoUML 0.34 and on my machine it
loads
twice as slow with Spur than before:
- PreSpur: 0:00:01:07.272
- Spur: 0:00:02:10.508
Here is the reference file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18323746/Tmp/ArgoUML-0-34.mse.zip
And here is the script: [ MooseModel new importFromMSEStream: (StandardFileStream
readOnlyFileNamed:
(FileSystem workingDirectory / 'src' /'ArgoUML-0-34' / 'ArgoUML-0-34.mse') fullName).
] timeToRunDo you get the same?
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Problem solving should be focused on describing the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev <report504.txt> <report1175.txt>