On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Alan W. Irwin <ir...@beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote: > Thanks very much Jeff, for providing some independent timing numbers for > startup latency which are an order of magnitude (!) smaller than mine. > So what is different about our wine platforms to cause that huge > difference? More below. > > On 2010-06-19 12:55+1000 Jeff Zaroyko wrote: > >> >> Windows: >> $ time gcc --version >> gcc.exe (GCC) 3.4.5 (mingw-vista special r3) >> Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO >> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR >> PURPOSE. >> >> real 0m0.020s >> user 0m0.000s >> sys 0m0.015s >> >> Wine: >> je...@genera:~$ WINEPREFIX=/home/jeffz/wine-cpbench time >> ~/git/wine/wine "c:\mingw\bin\gcc" "--version" >> gcc.exe (GCC) 3.4.5 (mingw-vista special r3) >> Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO >> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR >> PURPOSE. >> >> 0.00user 0.01system 0:00.02elapsed 66%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata >> 0maxresident)k >> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+1567minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > So to the level of your measurement precision you are consistently getting > 20 ms elapsed time for both Windows and Wine for the gcc --version > experiment on boxes very similar to mine. For the same experiment (I went > out of my way to use the same syntax you did) I am getting ~150 ms for one X > server and ~300 ms for the other. So that is an order of magnitude > difference in our results. When I can reduce my wine application startup > latency to 20 ms, I will be a happy camper, but the question is how can > I do that? > > One difference between us is I am using MinGW-4.5.0-1, but it is hard to > believe that the time taken to process the --version option for that has > changed so drastically from your gcc-3.4.5. Also, I believe the startup > latency on my platform is a general problem on my platform > and nothing to do with gcc. I > get essentially identical startup latency results with "mingw32-make > --version" and "gcc --version". "cmake --version" tends to be about 10 per > cent longer than the other two. Presumeably you have convenient access to > mingw32-make. Do you also get only ~20 ms startup latency for that?
Wine 1.2-rc3: je...@genera:~$ WINEPREFIX=/home/jeffz/wine-cpbench time ~/git/wine/wine "c:\mingw\bin\mingw32-make.exe" "--version" GNU Make 3.81 Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This program built for i386-pc-mingw32 0.09user 0.02system 0:00.14elapsed 81%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+8432minor)pagefaults 0swaps Windows: $ time mingw32-make.exe --version GNU Make 3.81 Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This program built for i386-pc-mingw32 real 0m0.030s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.000s > How about file systems? My experiments were done on ext3. What filesystem > were you using on the box where you did the wine timing experiment? ext3 also > The other thing that bothers me is I get the same identical result whether > wineserver is active or not. Can you confirm that for your wine timing > experiment or is that an unusual result? > > Other data here that may be relevant to the comparison with you: > > My hardware is 64-bit. > > Linux raven 2.6.26-2-amd64 #1 SMP Wed May 12 18:03:14 UTC 2010 x86_64 > GNU/Linux Likewise, but an older kernel: Linux genera 2.6.22-15-generic #1 SMP Fri Jul 11 18:56:36 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux X.Org X Server 1.4.0.90 8GB of ram, 6GB of swap. > I am running 32-bit wine (wine-1.2-rc3 compiled with the -O3 option for > Debian Lenny) which uses the following libraries: > > ir...@raven> ldd /home/software/wine/install/bin/wine > linux-gate.so.1 => (0xf77a2000) > libwine.so.1 => /home/software/wine/install/bin/../lib/libwine.so.1 > (0xf765d000) > libpthread.so.0 => /lib32/libpthread.so.0 (0xf7625000) > libc.so.6 => /lib32/libc.so.6 (0xf74d3000) > libdl.so.2 => /lib32/libdl.so.2 (0xf74ce000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xf77a3000) Ubuntu 8.04 I've compiled from git with the default -O2. I'm running wine from the source directory as you may have noticed. je...@genera:~$ ldd git/wine/loader/wine linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000) libwine.so.1 => /home/jeffz/git/wine/loader/../libs/wine/libwine.so.1 (0xf7deb000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib32/libpthread.so.0 (0xf7dd2000) libc.so.6 => /lib32/libc.so.6 (0xf7c83000) libdl.so.2 => /lib32/libdl.so.2 (0xf7c7f000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xf7f2d000) > Previously, I got ~50 per cent larger startup latency numbers with the > Debian Lenny package for wine-1.1.42 provided by WineHQ which is why I > switched to to building my own wine-1.2-rc3, but 150 ms with the latter just > doesn't cut it compared to your 20 ms. Are you still compiling with -O3 here? > Let me know if there is any additional comparison data I can provide. For > me the important question is what is fundamentally different between our two > software platforms or wine configurations that causes this order of > magnitude difference in startup latency on similar hardware? > > Alan > __________________________ > Alan W. Irwin > > Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy, > University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca). > > Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation > for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting software > package (plplot.org); the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of > Linux Links project (loll.sf.net); and the Linux Brochure Project > (lbproject.sf.net). > __________________________ > > Linux-powered Science > __________________________ >