On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Philippe Marschall <kustos@gmx.net> wrote:
On 29.04.2011 19:03, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Philippe Marschall <kustos@gmx.net
> <mailto:kustos@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