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.

Cheers,
Doru


> On Jan 24, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> 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 
>> <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]>
>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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).
>>>      ] timeToRun
>>> 
>>> Do 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
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mariano
>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
>> <report504.txt>
>> <report1175.txt>
> 


Reply via email to