On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Philippe Marschall <kus...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 29.04.2011 19:03, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Philippe Marschall <kus...@gmx.net > > <mailto:kus...@gmx.net>> wrote: > > > > On 27.04.2011 19 <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 > expensive > > > than the simple block-copy. The new implementation can be > optimized, > > > but we need to profile first to be sure we're tilting at the > relevant > > > 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. > > Cheers > Philippe >
