[Moose-dev] Re: [Pharo-dev] Spur Garbage collection takes 4 times more when loading MSE (WAS: mse loading looks slower :()

On Jan 24, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>

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 <

> > Hi, > > I made the benchmarks with the files you provided. I have more or less

> 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

> 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(a)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

> understand where the slowness comes. Maybe it comes from Spur itself,

> maybe it comes from somewhere else. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > >>> On Jan 24, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <

>> 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

> 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 &lt;tudor(a)tudorgirba.com&gt;

>> 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