January 2016 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

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

by Tudor Girba

Hi Eliot, I created a package to easily reproduce the problem: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18323746/Tmp/moose-6-for-GC-bug.zip In there you will get: - an image, - the MSE file to be loaded, and - a Playground script that loads that file. On my Mac, this takes some 3 minutes, while before it took about 1 minute. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Doru > On Jan 24, 2016, at 9:33 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Doru, > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)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(a)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(a)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(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 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(a)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(a)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). > >>> ] 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 > >>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mariano > >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Moose-dev mailing list > >>> Moose-dev(a)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(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >> <report504.txt> > >> <report1175.txt> > > > > > > > > -- > _,,,^..^,,,_ > best, Eliot > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Color yzw

by stepharo

I did not forget just running against time and busy Le 16/1/16 22:17, Nicolai Hess a Ã©crit : > > see attached changesets. > > load with: > > DangerousClassNotifier disableDuring:[ > String subclass: #Symbol > instanceVariableNames: '' > classVariableNames: 'NewSymbols OneCharacterSymbols SymbolTable > SelectorTable' > package: 'Collections-Strings' > ]. > > DangerousClassNotifier disableDuring:[ > 'selectortable.1.cs' > asFileReference fileIn. > ]. > Symbol initSelectorTable. > 'use_selector_table.cs' asFileReference fileIn. > > what do you think ? > > (selectortable.cs defines SelectorTable and some methods in Symbol and > String) > (use_selector_table adds selectors as internedSelectorSymbol if this > selector is set as a selector on CompiledMethod > and uses findInternedSelector .... in RubStyler visitMessageNode)

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Moving large classes in Pharo5 between packages makes me sad

by stepharo

Tell us more because right now we cannot help. What is the problem? How to reproduce it? Setf Le 24/1/16 20:08, Aliaksei Syrel a Ã©crit : > Inline image 1 > > Cheers, > Alex >

Jan. 24, 2016

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

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Doru, On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)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(a)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(a)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(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 > 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(a)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(a)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). > >>> ] 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 > >>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mariano > >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Moose-dev mailing list > >>> Moose-dev(a)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(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >> <report504.txt> > >> <report1175.txt> > > > > > -- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot

Jan. 24, 2016

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

by Tudor Girba

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 <eliot.miranda(a)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(a)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(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 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(a)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(a)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). >>> ] 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 >>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev(a)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(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> <report504.txt> >> <report1175.txt> >

Jan. 24, 2016

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

by Eliot Miranda

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(a)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(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 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(a)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(a)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). >> ] 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 >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)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(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > <report504.txt> > <report1175.txt>

Jan. 24, 2016

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

by Stephan Eggermont

I think the use of SmallDictionaries for storing Famix state is not such a good idea. After loading the model: bag := Bag new . SmallDictionary allInstances do: [ :each | bag add: each size ]. bag sortedCounts "{530387->0. 19253->3. 18292->1. 20->2. 2->4. 2->11. 1->12}" bag := Bag new . SmallDictionary allInstances do: [ :each | bag add: (each keys) ]. bag sortedCounts an Array(530387->#() 19253->#(#cyclomaticComplexity #numberOfStatements #mooseName) 9311->#(#binding) 8707->#(#mooseName) 426->#(#comments) 20->#(#comments #ir) 13->#(#ir) 4->#(#comments #binding) 3->#(#binding #semanticWarning) 2->#('charset') 1->#(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12) 1->#(14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24) 1->#(9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16) 1->an Array('-source-' #'`@method:' RBPatternVariableNode(`@args) '-pragmas-') 1->#(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) 1->{MooseModel} 1->{FAMIXAnnotationType. FAMIXClass. FAMIXNamespace. FAMIXMethod} 1->#(1 2))

Jan. 24, 2016

Moving large classes in Pharo5 between packages makes me sad

by Aliaksei Syrel

[image: Inline image 1] Cheers, Alex

Jan. 24, 2016

3rd Chapter of Updated Pharo by Example ready for review.

by stepharo

3rd Chapter of Updated Pharo by Example ready for review. https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/view/Books/job/UpdatedPharoByExample… Stef Not thinking too much, just doing.

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fix To Include

by stepharo

>> Fix to include are marked when we do not want that the monkey recheck them to avoid that >> they get unttaged for integration. > No, for me they are the ones to get integrated next. I always start with them. i never integrate anything > that is not âfix to includeâ. > > I configured my integrator tool to not show my anything else. This way I am sure that I never integrate > something wrong by mistake. I do not have the same process.

Jan. 24, 2016