Curious drawing performance issue

> I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with Cuis
> drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of VM
> CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give an
> indication of what it's currently costing in drawing performance...
>
> After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see roughly
> how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur down the
> road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a rough
> apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was faster,
> but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and it also
> performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.   Here
> are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to 5000:
> Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
>
> Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source code
> standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect that
> sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on Linux) or
> are others noticing drawing issues as well?

> I should also mention that the Morph window is ~ 500x450 and
> #stepTime
> is set to 0 for anyone who wants to try to replicate...
>
> On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 17:36 -0400, Phil (list) wrote:
> > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with
> Cuis
> > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of
> VM
> > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give
> an
> > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing
> performance...
> >
> > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see
> roughly
> > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur
> down the
> > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a
> rough
> > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was
> faster,
> > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and
> it also
> > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.  
> Here
> > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to
> 5000:
> > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> >
> > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source
> code
> > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect
> that
> > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on
> Linux) or
> > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org

> On 12 Aug 2015 at 17:44, Phil (list) wrote:
>
> > I should also mention that the Morph window is ~ 500x450 and
> > #stepTime
> > is set to 0 for anyone who wants to try to replicate...
> >
> > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 17:36 -0400, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with
> > Cuis
> > > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of
> > VM
> > > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give
> > an
> > > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing
> > performance...
> > >
> > > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see
> > roughly
> > > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur
> > down the
> > > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a
> > rough
> > > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was
> > faster,
> > > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and
> > it also
> > > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.  
> > Here
> > > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> > > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to
> > 5000:
> > > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> > >
> > > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source
> > code
> > > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect
> > that
> > > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on
> > Linux) or
> > > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cuis mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org

> Dan,
>
>
> On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 22:17 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > On Windows 7 with Cuis loaded and idle, Windows Task Manager >
> Performance reports 0%
> > CPU Usage. Memory Usage is 1.28 GB.
> >
>
> What does the cpu usage show via World Menu -> Open... -> Process
> Browser for Morphic?
>

> > With BouncingAtoms morphExtent: 500@450, stepTime 0, nAtoms 5000
> the report is 24 -
> > 25% CPU Usage, 1.28 GB Memory Usage, 2 - 6 fps.
> >
>
> OK, so it's not platform specific poor performance.  If you close
> the
> BouncingAtomsMorph and wait for things to settle for a few seconds,
> what
> does Process Browser show the Morphic cpu usage as??
>

> > Cuis 4.2 2449, cogwin 15.22.3370
> >
> >  - Dan
> >
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
> > On 12 Aug 2015 at 17:44, Phil (list) wrote:
> >
> > > I should also mention that the Morph window is ~ 500x450 and
> > > #stepTime
> > > is set to 0 for anyone who wants to try to replicate...
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 17:36 -0400, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on
> with
> > > Cuis
> > > > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes
> ~20% of
> > > VM
> > > > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to
> give
> > > an
> > > > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing
> > > performance...
> > > >
> > > > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to
> see
> > > roughly
> > > > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from
> Spur
> > > down the
> > > > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to
> get a
> > > rough
> > > > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur
> was
> > > faster,
> > > > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5
> and
> > > it also
> > > > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same
> VM.  
> > > Here
> > > > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with
> roughly
> > > > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set
> to
> > > 5000:
> > > > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > > > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > > > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> > > >
> > > > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a
> source
> > > code
> > > > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd
> expect
> > > that
> > > > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm
> on
> > > Linux) or
> > > > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Cuis mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cuis mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org

> On 13 Aug 2015 at 2:29, Phil (list) wrote:
>
> > Dan,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 22:17 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> > > Hi Phil,
> > >
> > > On Windows 7 with Cuis loaded and idle, Windows Task Manager >
> > Performance reports 0%
> > > CPU Usage. Memory Usage is 1.28 GB.
> > >
> >
> > What does the cpu usage show via World Menu -> Open... -> Process
> > Browser for Morphic?
> >
>
> It shows 12%.
>
> > > With BouncingAtoms morphExtent: 500@450, stepTime 0, nAtoms 5000
> > the report is 24 -
> > > 25% CPU Usage, 1.28 GB Memory Usage, 2 - 6 fps.
> > >
> >
> > OK, so it's not platform specific poor performance.  If you close
> > the
> > BouncingAtomsMorph and wait for things to settle for a few seconds,
> > what
> > does Process Browser show the Morphic cpu usage as??
> >
>
> It shows 40%. However, Win7 shows 1 - 2%. Using Process Browser to measure absolute as
> opposed to relative CPU usage seems inaccurate to me. The /difference/ in Process Browser
> numbers while atoms is running vs not running agree with Win7: 1 - 2%.
>
> I don't like for something to try to measure its own performance :-) - an independent
> instrument is preferable IMHO.

>  
> > > Cuis 4.2 2449, cogwin 15.22.3370
> > >
> > >  - Dan
> > >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> >
> > > On 12 Aug 2015 at 17:44, Phil (list) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I should also mention that the Morph window is ~ 500x450 and
> > > > #stepTime
> > > > is set to 0 for anyone who wants to try to replicate...
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 17:36 -0400, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > > > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on
> > with
> > > > Cuis
> > > > > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes
> > ~20% of
> > > > VM
> > > > > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to
> > give
> > > > an
> > > > > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing
> > > > performance...
> > > > >
> > > > > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to
> > see
> > > > roughly
> > > > > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from
> > Spur
> > > > down the
> > > > > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to
> > get a
> > > > rough
> > > > > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur
> > was
> > > > faster,
> > > > > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5
> > and
> > > > it also
> > > > > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same
> > VM.  
> > > > Here
> > > > > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with
> > roughly
> > > > > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set
> > to
> > > > 5000:
> > > > > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > > > > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > > > > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> > > > >
> > > > > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a
> > source
> > > > code
> > > > > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd
> > expect
> > > > that
> > > > > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm
> > on
> > > > Linux) or
> > > > > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Cuis mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Cuis mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cuis mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org

> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 11:11 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> > On 13 Aug 2015 at 2:29, Phil (list) wrote:
> >
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 22:17 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> > > > Hi Phil,
> > > >
> > > > On Windows 7 with Cuis loaded and idle, Windows Task Manager
> >
> > > Performance reports 0%
> > > > CPU Usage. Memory Usage is 1.28 GB.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What does the cpu usage show via World Menu -> Open... ->
> Process
> > > Browser for Morphic?
> > >
> >
> > It shows 12%.
> >
> > > > With BouncingAtoms morphExtent: 500@450, stepTime 0, nAtoms
> 5000
> > > the report is 24 -
> > > > 25% CPU Usage, 1.28 GB Memory Usage, 2 - 6 fps.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, so it's not platform specific poor performance.  If you
> close
> > > the
> > > BouncingAtomsMorph and wait for things to settle for a few
> seconds,
> > > what
> > > does Process Browser show the Morphic cpu usage as??
> > >
> >
> > It shows 40%. However, Win7 shows 1 - 2%. Using Process Browser to
> measure absolute as
> > opposed to relative CPU usage seems inaccurate to me. The
> /difference/ in Process Browser
> > numbers while atoms is running vs not running agree with Win7: 1 -
> 2%.
> >
> > I don't like for something to try to measure its own performance
> :-) - an independent
> > instrument is preferable IMHO.
>
> True, the external monitoring tools will tend to give you a better
> absolute picture as there may be some VM overhead (esp if plugins
> are
> involved) that Process Browser can't see.  However, CPU utilization
> as
> reported by the OS isn't terribly helpful unless you know how many
> cores
> the system has, was anything else active at the time, etc.
> ProcessBrowser, while limited, avoids all that since it shows what
> was
> used vs what was available to it. (usually 100/<num cores> % of
> total
> system CPU)  Just seemed to make for a better apples to apples
> comparison in this case to see if you are having the same issue
> re:
> Morphic chewing up cycles while otherwise 'idle'.
>

> >  
> > > > Cuis 4.2 2449, cogwin 15.22.3370
> > > >
> > > >  - Dan
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > > On 12 Aug 2015 at 17:44, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I should also mention that the Morph window is ~ 500x450
> and
> > > > > #stepTime
> > > > > is set to 0 for anyone who wants to try to replicate...
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 17:36 -0400, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > > > > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going
> on
> > > with
> > > > > Cuis
> > > > > > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic
> consumes
> > > ~20% of
> > > > > VM
> > > > > > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems
> to
> > > give
> > > > > an
> > > > > > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing
> > > > > performance...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious
> to
> > > see
> > > > > roughly
> > > > > > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect
> from
> > > Spur
> > > > > down the
> > > > > > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try
> to
> > > get a
> > > > > rough
> > > > > > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised:
> Spur
> > > was
> > > > > faster,
> > > > > > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak
> 4.5
> > > and
> > > > > it also
> > > > > > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the
> same
> > > VM.  
> > > > > Here
> > > > > > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with
> > > roughly
> > > > > > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count
> set
> > > to
> > > > > 5000:
> > > > > > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > > > > > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > > > > > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a
> > > source
> > > > > code
> > > > > > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where
> I'd
> > > expect
> > > > > that
> > > > > > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue
> (I'm
> > > on
> > > > > Linux) or
> > > > > > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Cuis mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Cuis mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Cuis mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cuis mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org

> On 13 Aug 2015 at 16:01, Phil (list) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 11:11 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> > > On 13 Aug 2015 at 2:29, Phil (list) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dan,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 22:17 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> > > > > Hi Phil,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Windows 7 with Cuis loaded and idle, Windows Task Manager
> > >
> > > > Performance reports 0%
> > > > > CPU Usage. Memory Usage is 1.28 GB.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What does the cpu usage show via World Menu -> Open... ->
> > Process
> > > > Browser for Morphic?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It shows 12%.
> > >
> > > > > With BouncingAtoms morphExtent: 500@450, stepTime 0, nAtoms
> > 5000
> > > > the report is 24 -
> > > > > 25% CPU Usage, 1.28 GB Memory Usage, 2 - 6 fps.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, so it's not platform specific poor performance.  If you
> > close
> > > > the
> > > > BouncingAtomsMorph and wait for things to settle for a few
> > seconds,
> > > > what
> > > > does Process Browser show the Morphic cpu usage as??
> > > >
> > >
> > > It shows 40%. However, Win7 shows 1 - 2%. Using Process Browser to
> > measure absolute as
> > > opposed to relative CPU usage seems inaccurate to me. The
> > /difference/ in Process Browser
> > > numbers while atoms is running vs not running agree with Win7: 1 -
> > 2%.
> > >
> > > I don't like for something to try to measure its own performance
> > :-) - an independent
> > > instrument is preferable IMHO.
> >
> > True, the external monitoring tools will tend to give you a better
> > absolute picture as there may be some VM overhead (esp if plugins
> > are
> > involved) that Process Browser can't see.  However, CPU utilization
> > as
> > reported by the OS isn't terribly helpful unless you know how many
> > cores
> > the system has, was anything else active at the time, etc.
> > ProcessBrowser, while limited, avoids all that since it shows what
> > was
> > used vs what was available to it. (usually 100/<num cores> % of
> > total
> > system CPU)  Just seemed to make for a better apples to apples
> > comparison in this case to see if you are having the same issue
> > re:
> > Morphic chewing up cycles while otherwise 'idle'.
> >
>
> Rummaging around in my system reveals:
>
> Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
> 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1
>
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2125 CPU @
> 3.30 GHz
>
> All Programs>Accessories>System Tools>Resource Monitor shows:
>
> an appalling (to me, at least) >170 threads "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every
> problem looks like a nail" sitting there quietly for the most part. Resource Monitor shows four
> "CPUs" with CPU 1 and CPU 3 parked. Total CPU usage < 1%.
>

> > >  
> > > > > Cuis 4.2 2449, cogwin 15.22.3370
> > > > >
> > > > >  - Dan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > > On 12 Aug 2015 at 17:44, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I should also mention that the Morph window is ~ 500x450
> > and
> > > > > > #stepTime
> > > > > > is set to 0 for anyone who wants to try to replicate...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 17:36 -0400, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > > > > > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going
> > on
> > > > with
> > > > > > Cuis
> > > > > > > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic
> > consumes
> > > > ~20% of
> > > > > > VM
> > > > > > > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems
> > to
> > > > give
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing
> > > > > > performance...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > > roughly
> > > > > > > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect
> > from
> > > > Spur
> > > > > > down the
> > > > > > > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try
> > to
> > > > get a
> > > > > > rough
> > > > > > > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised:
> > Spur
> > > > was
> > > > > > faster,
> > > > > > > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak
> > 4.5
> > > > and
> > > > > > it also
> > > > > > > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the
> > same
> > > > VM.  
> > > > > > Here
> > > > > > > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with
> > > > roughly
> > > > > > > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count
> > set
> > > > to
> > > > > > 5000:
> > > > > > > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > > > > > > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > > > > > > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a
> > > > source
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where
> > I'd
> > > > expect
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue
> > (I'm
> > > > on
> > > > > > Linux) or
> > > > > > > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Cuis mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Cuis mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Cuis mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Cuis mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cuis mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org

> I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with Cuis
> drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of VM
> CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give an
> indication of what it's currently costing in drawing performance...
>
> After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see roughly
> how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur down the
> road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a rough
> apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was faster,
> but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and it also
> performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.   Here
> are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to 5000:
> Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
>
> Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source code
> standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect that
> sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on Linux) or
> are others noticing drawing issues as well?
>

> The sum of percentages in the Cuis process browser is always 100%.
> What
> it is measured is how the time spent by the interpreter is split
> amongst
> Smalltalk processes.
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> On 8/14/2015 1:42 PM, Dan Norton wrote:
> > ...
> > When BouncingAtoms is stopped, all return to CPU 0<  5%, CPU 2<1%,
> CPU 1 and CPU 3
> > parked.
> >
> > So, the question is why should Cuis process browser report that
> Morphic UI is consuming 10
> > - 14% ?
>

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> On 8/12/2015 6:36 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with Cuis
> > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of VM
> > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give an
> > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing performance...
> >
> > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see roughly
> > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur down the
> > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a rough
> > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was faster,
> > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and it also
> > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.   Here
> > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to 5000:
> > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> >
> > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source code
> > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect that
> > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on Linux) or
> > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> >
>

> On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 10:24 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I won't spoil your fun, so instead of explaining the difference between
>> Squeak and Cuis here, I give you a suggestion: Use the profiler.
>>
> I will do that right... hey, where did the profiler option go in
> ProcessBrowser?  Well, ok, I'll just do it manually with
> #spyOnProcess:... grr!  I see it was taken out in 2409.  Now you're just
> having fun with me...
>

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> On 8/12/2015 6:36 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with Cuis
> > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of VM
> > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give an
> > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing performance...
> >
> > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see roughly
> > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur down the
> > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a rough
> > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was faster,
> > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and it also
> > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.   Here
> > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to 5000:
> > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> >
> > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source code
> > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect that
> > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on Linux) or
> > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> >
>

> On 8/15/2015 4:40 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 10:24 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> >> Hi Phil,
> >>
> >> I won't spoil your fun, so instead of explaining the difference between
> >> Squeak and Cuis here, I give you a suggestion: Use the profiler.
> >>
> > I will do that right... hey, where did the profiler option go in
> > ProcessBrowser?  Well, ok, I'll just do it manually with
> > #spyOnProcess:... grr!  I see it was taken out in 2409.  Now you're just
> > having fun with me...
> >
>
> Swear not. Use any of the class methods in the profiler:
> AndreasSystemProfiler. For example, something like
>
>      AndreasSystemProfiler spyForMilliseconds: 200
>

> On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 10:24 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I won't spoil your fun, so instead of explaining the difference between
>> Squeak and Cuis here, I give you a suggestion: Use the profiler.
>>
> Given your comment it sounds like it's by design...
>
> OK, so I reverted to an older build to get back the process-based
> profiler and I can see that Cuis is doing a lot more drawing (work) than
> Squeak. (duh!) Unfortunately, Cuis/Squeak doesn't provide a lot of
> tooling to tell me what that work actually is.  What I think I see going
> on is that Squeak is using the old region-based damage system while Cuis
> appears to just be bit-blitting the entire frame each time? (I'll hold
> off jumping up and down for joy until I get confirmation... if that's
> what's going on, that is FANTASTIC!)
>

>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>> On 8/12/2015 6:36 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
>>> I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with Cuis
>>> drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of VM
>>> CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give an
>>> indication of what it's currently costing in drawing performance...
>>>
>>> After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see roughly
>>> how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur down the
>>> road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a rough
>>> apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was faster,
>>> but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and it also
>>> performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.   Here
>>> are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
>>> comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to 5000:
>>> Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
>>> Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
>>> Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
>>>
>>> Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source code
>>> standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect that
>>> sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on Linux) or
>>> are others noticing drawing issues as well?
>>>
>
>

> On 8/15/2015 5:58 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 10:24 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> >> Hi Phil,
> >>
> >> I won't spoil your fun, so instead of explaining the difference between
> >> Squeak and Cuis here, I give you a suggestion: Use the profiler.
> >>
> > Given your comment it sounds like it's by design...
> >
> > OK, so I reverted to an older build to get back the process-based
> > profiler and I can see that Cuis is doing a lot more drawing (work) than
> > Squeak. (duh!) Unfortunately, Cuis/Squeak doesn't provide a lot of
> > tooling to tell me what that work actually is.  What I think I see going
> > on is that Squeak is using the old region-based damage system while Cuis
> > appears to just be bit-blitting the entire frame each time? (I'll hold
> > off jumping up and down for joy until I get confirmation... if that's
> > what's going on, that is FANTASTIC!)
> >
>
> C'mon! Isn't it obvious in the profiler tree that the problem is using
> local coordinates and transforming them on each draw?
>

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Juan Vuletich
> >>
> >> On 8/12/2015 6:36 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
> >>> I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with Cuis
> >>> drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of VM
> >>> CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give an
> >>> indication of what it's currently costing in drawing performance...
> >>>
> >>> After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see roughly
> >>> how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur down the
> >>> road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a rough
> >>> apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was faster,
> >>> but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and it also
> >>> performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.   Here
> >>> are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> >>> comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to 5000:
> >>> Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> >>> Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> >>> Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> >>>
> >>> Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source code
> >>> standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect that
> >>> sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on Linux) or
> >>> are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> >>>
> >
> >
>

> On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 18:41 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> > On 8/15/2015 5:58 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 10:24 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> > >> Hi Phil,
> > >>
> > >> I won't spoil your fun, so instead of explaining the difference between
> > >> Squeak and Cuis here, I give you a suggestion: Use the profiler.
> > >>
> > > Given your comment it sounds like it's by design...
> > >
> > > OK, so I reverted to an older build to get back the process-based
> > > profiler and I can see that Cuis is doing a lot more drawing (work) than
> > > Squeak. (duh!) Unfortunately, Cuis/Squeak doesn't provide a lot of
> > > tooling to tell me what that work actually is.  What I think I see going
> > > on is that Squeak is using the old region-based damage system while Cuis
> > > appears to just be bit-blitting the entire frame each time? (I'll hold
> > > off jumping up and down for joy until I get confirmation... if that's
> > > what's going on, that is FANTASTIC!)
> > >
> >
> > C'mon! Isn't it obvious in the profiler tree that the problem is using
> > local coordinates and transforming them on each draw?
> >
>
> In the old profiler output (I went back to 2404 to get it), it didn't
> jump out at me (the bounds related calls only appear to be <10% of the
> time)  It could just be that I'm more dense than usual :-)
>

> I can definitely see how that could cause a problem doing 1000s of local
> to global conversions per frame...
>
> > It is possible to optimize it back. It just requires some work.
> >
>
> Fair enough... but I still think that things are generally off
> performance-wise with Morphic... (it might just be that we've got a
> bunch of fairly unoptimized code similar to what's going on with
> BouncingAtomsMorph that will take some time to work through, but things
> are definitely feeling slow-ish from a UI standpoint)
>
> > Cheers,
> > Juan Vuletich
> >
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Juan Vuletich
> > >>
> > >> On 8/12/2015 6:36 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > >>> I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on with Cuis
> > >>> drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes ~20% of VM
> > >>> CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to give an
> > >>> indication of what it's currently costing in drawing performance...
> > >>>
> > >>> After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to see roughly
> > >>> how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from Spur down the
> > >>> road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to get a rough
> > >>> apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur was faster,
> > >>> but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5 and it also
> > >>> performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same VM.   Here
> > >>> are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with roughly
> > >>> comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set to 5000:
> > >>> Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > >>> Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > >>> Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> > >>>
> > >>> Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a source code
> > >>> standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd expect that
> > >>> sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm on Linux) or
> > >>> are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>