Why Squeak is so sloooow?

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Beginners digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Why Squeak is so sloooow? (Brad Fuller)
>    2. Re: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow? (Milan
> Zimmermann)
>    3. Re: Why Squeak is so sloooow? (Brad Fuller)
>    4. Re: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow? (David
> Shaffer)
>    5. RE: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow? (Ramon Leon)
>    6. Re: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow? (Milan
> Zimmermann)
>    7. Re: RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow? (Milan
> Zimmermann)
>    8. Re: Why Squeak is so sloooow? ([hidden email])
>
>
>

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700
> From: Brad Fuller <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: "A friendly place to get answers to even the
> most basic questions
> about Squeak."
> <[hidden email]>, Squeak-Dev
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> > Antonio,
> >
> > If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
> >
> > | a b |
> > a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> > b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> > [a += b] timeToRun.
> >
> > you probably get a number around 100 or 200. This
> means that Squeak
> > can add two 32-bit float arrays with 16M entries
> in 100 milliseconds
> > or such. This is basicaly comparable
> Java-performance.
> Ouch! I just did this (twice, just to make sure) in
> the 7058 imagine and
> squeak bombed with the output below.
> This was with the latest Linux 3.9 VM. I tried with
> the 3.7-7 VM and it
> bombed too.
> kernel: 2.6.16-1.2080.16.rrt.rhfc5.ccrma (realtime
> kernel from Stanford
> - for audio)
>
> what's the problem?
>
> (Note Andreas said to Avi in a Sep12 msg regarding
> similar error:
> "I think you're seeing the old problem of signed vs.
> unsigned ints when
> accessing memory locations (the negative numbers
> seem to indicate that
> much). Try a later VM (3.9-7 is the latest according
> to SqueakVM.org) -
> IIRC, then this problem got fixed in later versions.
> )
>
> Just to show I'm using the 3.9 version:
>
> [bfuller@ives images]$ which squeak
> /usr/local/bin/squeak
>
> [bfuller@ives images]$ ls -lsa /usr/local/bin/squeak
> 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 bfuller sonaural 26 Sep 14 16:56
> /usr/local/bin/squeak ->
>   ../lib/squeak/3.9-7/squeak
>
> [bfuller@ives images]$ ls
> /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7
> AioPlugin             Squeak3D            
> vm-display-X11
> B3DAcceleratorPlugin  UnixOSProcessPlugin
> vm-sound-null
> npsqueak.so           UUIDPlugin          
> vm-sound-OSS
> PseudoTTYPlugin       vm-display-fbdev    
> XDisplayControlPlugin
> squeak                vm-display-null
>
>
>

> sweep failed to find exact end of memory
>
> -2128024296 Point>+
> -2128024388 Rectangle>center
> -2128026592 Morph>layoutInBounds:
> -2128027312 Morph>layoutProportionallyIn:
> -2128046872 [] in ProportionalLayout>layout:in:
> -2128046964 SequenceableCollection>do:
> -2128047056 Morph>submorphsDo:
> -2128047148 ProportionalLayout>layout:in:
> -2128054100 Morph>doLayoutIn:
> -2128055204 [] in Morph>fullBounds
> -2128055020 BlockContext>on:do:
> -2128055388 Morph>fullBounds
> -2128055296 [] in Morph>submorphBounds
> -2128055480 SequenceableCollection>do:
> -2128055572 Morph>submorphBounds
> -2128057332 Morph>privateFullBounds
> -2128065988 Morph>doLayoutIn:
> -2128067000 [] in Morph>fullBounds
> -2128066816 BlockContext>on:do:
> -2128067092 Morph>fullBounds
> -2128067184
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchDefault:with:
> -2128067276
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchEvent:with:
> -2128067384 Morph>processEvent:using:
> -2128067812 PasteUpMorph>processEvent:using:
> -2128067960 Morph>processEvent:
> -2128068052 HandMorph>sendEvent:focus:clear:
> -2128068296 HandMorph>sendMouseEvent:
> -2128068388 HandMorph>handleEvent:
> -2128068768 MouseOverHandler>processMouseOver:
> 2032428416 HandMorph>handleEvent:
> 2032428116 HandMorph>processEvents
> 2032428208 [] in WorldState>doOneCycleNowFor:
> 2032428024 SequenceableCollection>do:
> 2032427932 WorldState>handsDo:
> 2032427840 WorldState>doOneCycleNowFor:
> 2032427748 WorldState>doOneCycleFor:
> 2032427656 WorldState>doOneSubCycleFor:
> 2032427564 PasteUpMorph>doOneSubCycle
> 2032409876 MenuMorph>invokeModalAt:in:allowKeyboard:
> 2032409784 MenuMorph>invokeModal:
> 2032409416 MenuMorph>invokeModal
> 2032402804 PluggableTextMorph>yellowButtonActivity:
> 2032402712 TextMorphForEditView>mouseDown:
> 2032402620 Morph>handleMouseDown:
> 2032402528 MouseButtonEvent>sentTo:
> 2032402436 Morph>handleEvent:
> 2032402332
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchMouseDown:with:
> 2032402200
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchEvent:with:
> 2032402108 Morph>processEvent:using:
> 2032401976
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchMouseDown:with:
> 2032401844
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchEvent:with:
> 2032401752 Morph>processEvent:using:
> 2032401660
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchMouseDown:with:
> 2032401568
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchEvent:with:
> 2032401476 Morph>processEvent:using:
> 2032401344
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchMouseDown:with:
> 2032401252
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchEvent:with:
> 2032401160 Morph>processEvent:using:
> 2032401068
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchMouseDown:with:
> 2032400976
> MorphicEventDispatcher>dispatchEvent:with:
> 2032400868 Morph>processEvent:using:
> 2032400776 PasteUpMorph>processEvent:using:
> 2032400592 Morph>processEvent:
> 2032400500 HandMorph>sendEvent:focus:clear:
> 2032400408 HandMorph>sendMouseEvent:
> 2032400264 HandMorph>handleEvent:
> 2032400044 HandMorph>processEvents
> 2032400136 [] in WorldState>doOneCycleNowFor:
> 2032399952 SequenceableCollection>do:
> 2032399860 WorldState>handsDo:
> 2032399768 WorldState>doOneCycleNowFor:
> 2032399676 WorldState>doOneCycleFor:
> 2032399584 PasteUpMorph>doOneCycle
> 2025718576 [] in >spawnNewProcess
> 2025718760 [] in BlockContext>newProcess
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:02:45 -0400
> From: Milan Zimmermann
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 2006 September 21 15:07, David Shaffer wrote:
> >
> > There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image.
>
> > Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> <<snip>>
> > I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical
> tests, but with
> > MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :):) )
>
> You would have to install the above package from
> Squeakmap to run the
> "graphics test" I mentioned, but please note it's
> alpha, so install to a 3.9
> image without important stuff.
>
> I am not sure this is a good "graphical test", it
> does create graphs, so it
> should have some value, it is non-interactive
> graphics though. Apart from
> that, 3.9 feels as good as 3.7 here, but as you said
> .. it's my feelin' only
>
> Milan
>
> > I tried loading Plot Morph
> > and Plot Morph 2 from SqueakMap.  Neither worked
> so I'm guessing that's
> > not the source of this class for 3.9.  I'd be
> happy to run this
> > benchmark on the off chance it will lead to some
> information about why
> > things are sluggish.  I'm guessing, though, that
> it is a dead-end.
> > "feels slow" is often hard to track down in
> benchmarks.  Probably
> > something that does window manipulation would
> reveal the problem...
> >
> > David
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beginners mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:06:40 -0700
> From: Brad Fuller <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "A friendly place to get answers to even the
> most basic questions
> about Squeak."
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Brad Fuller wrote:
> > Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> >  
> >> Antonio,
> >>
> >> If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
> >>
> >> | a b |
> >> a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> >> b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> >> [a += b] timeToRun.
> >>
> >> you probably get a number around 100 or 200. This
> means that Squeak
> >> can add two 32-bit float arrays with 16M entries
> in 100 milliseconds
> >> or such. This is basicaly comparable
> Java-performance.
> >>    
> > Ouch! I just did this (twice, just to make sure)
> in the 7058 imagine and
> > squeak bombed with the output below.
> > This was with the latest Linux 3.9 VM. I tried
> with the 3.7-7 VM and it
> > bombed too.
> > kernel: 2.6.16-1.2080.16.rrt.rhfc5.ccrma (realtime
> kernel from Stanford
> > - for audio)
> >  
> just a note to say that I tried it on kernel:
> 2.6.17-1.2174_FC5
> with no difference.... same problem.
> Anyone have an idea for this?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:33:51 -0400
> From: David Shaffer <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: "A friendly place to get answers to even the
> most basic questions
> about Squeak."
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> > On 2006 September 21 15:07, David Shaffer wrote:
> >  
> >> There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image.
> >>    
> >
> >  
> >> Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> >>    
> > <<snip>>
> >  
> >> I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical
> tests, but with
> >> MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :):) )
> >>    
> Gasp, sorry, didn't see that.  I've loaded it now.
> Here are the
> benchmark results:
>
> [
> 1 to: 10 do: [ :i |
> XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> ]
> ] timeToRun.
>
> 15000
>
> At this point the UI is so slow that moving a window
> or morph results in
> a noticable lag (nearly a second between releasing
> the mouse button
> after a drag until the object that was dragged is
> drawn in its new
> location).
>
> >
> > You would have to install the above package from
> Squeakmap to run the
> > "graphics test" I mentioned, but please note it's
> alpha, so install to a 3.9
> > image without important stuff.
> >
> > I am not sure this is a good "graphical test", it
> does create graphs, so it
> > should have some value, it is non-interactive
> graphics though. Apart from
> > that, 3.9 feels as good as 3.7 here, but as you
> said .. it's my feelin' only
> >  
>
> Agreed...it is subjective.
>
> David
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:43:31 -0700
> From: "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: RE: [Newbies] RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: "'A friendly place to get answers to even the
> most basic questions
> about Squeak.'"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
> <01d201c6ddcf$5d2396a0$[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> > Gasp, sorry, didn't see that.  I've loaded it now.
>  Here are
> > the benchmark results:
> >
> > [
> > 1 to: 10 do: [ :i |
> > XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> > XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> > XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> > XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> > XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> > XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> > ]
> > ] timeToRun.
> >
> > 15000
>
> Slightly off topic, but this is a noob list, maybe
> some will find this
> interesting.  If you aren't using the index in
> #to:do:, why not simply...
>
> 10 timesRepeat: [
>     XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld.
>     XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld.
>     XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld.
>     XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld.
>     XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld.
>     XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> ]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:42:52 -0400
> From: Milan Zimmermann
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 2006 September 21 18:43, Ramon Leon wrote:
> >
> > Slightly off topic, but this is a noob list, maybe
> some will find this
> > interesting.  If you aren't using the index in
> #to:do:, why not simply...
>
> Ramon - yes, hehe i do qualify for a newbie, my
> repertoir is limited :) -
> thanks for the suggestion
>
> >
> > 10 timesRepeat: [
> >     XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> >     XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> >     XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> >     XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> >     XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> >     XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> > ]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beginners mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:07:27 -0400
> From: Milan Zimmermann
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 2006 September 21 18:33, David Shaffer wrote:
> > ] timeToRun.
> >
> > 15000
> >
> > At this point the UI is so slow that moving a
> window or morph results in
> > a noticable lag (nearly a second between releasing
> the mouse button
> > after a drag until the object that was dragged is
> drawn in its new
> > location).
> >
>
> David,
>
> Thanks for running it - your observation is
> interesting, here it does not seem
> noticeably slower after I have run the benchmark ...
>
>
> I am starting to think (if I read your configuration
> correctly) - you do have
> a different image (I have newer than 7055) and
> slightly different VM - at
> least compiled using different GCC version... The
> older GCC the faster :) -
> If you have time to experiment,  you may want to try
> Ian's VM that I use?
>
> Davids setup:
> ========================
> shaffer@localhost ~/Squeak/Squeak3.9g-7055 $ squeak
> -version
> 3.9-7 #1 Mon Sep  4 17:01:02 EDT 2006 gcc 3.4.6
> Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021]
> Linux localhost 2.6.17-gentoo-r4 #1 PREEMPT Thu Aug
> 24 18:31:06 EDT 2006
> i686 Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 2.00GHz
> GNU/Linux
> default plugin location:
> /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so
> ========================
>
> Milans setup:
> ========================
> Squeak3.9g-7058.image
> mzimmermann@home-server:~> squeak -version
> 3.9-7 #5 Mon Apr 24 20:07:28 PDT 2006 gcc 3.3.5
> Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021]
> Linux vps.piumarta.com
> 2.4.20-021stab028.18.777-enterprise #1 SMP Wed Sep
> 14
> 19:34:46 MSD 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
> default plugin location:
> /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so
> ========================
>
> Milan
>
>
> > > You would have to install the above package from
> Squeakmap to run the
> > > "graphics test" I mentioned, but please note
> it's alpha, so install to a
> > > 3.9 image without important stuff.
> > >
> > > I am not sure this is a good "graphical test",
> it does create graphs, so
> > > it should have some value, it is non-interactive
> graphics though. Apart
> > > from that, 3.9 feels as good as 3.7 here, but as
> you said .. it's my
> > > feelin' only
> >
> > Agreed...it is subjective.
> >
> > David
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beginners mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
>

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:48:36 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] Why Squeak is so sloooow?
> To: [hidden email],
> [hidden email]
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> hi-
>
> Brad Fuller also wrote:
> > Brad Fuller wrote:
> >> Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Antonio,
> >>>
> >>> If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
> >>>
> >>> | a b |
> >>> a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> >>> b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> >>> [a += b] timeToRun.
> >>>
> >>> you probably get a number around 100 or 200.
> This means that Squeak
> >>> can add two 32-bit float arrays with 16M entries
> in 100 milliseconds
> >>> or such. This is basicaly comparable
> Java-performance.
> >>>    
> >> Ouch! I just did this (twice, just to make sure)
> in the 7058 imagine and
> >> squeak bombed with the output below.
> >> This was with the latest Linux 3.9 VM. I tried
> with the 3.7-7 VM and it
> >> bombed too.
> >> kernel: 2.6.16-1.2080.16.rrt.rhfc5.ccrma
> (realtime kernel from Stanford
> >> - for audio)
> >>  
> > just a note to say that I tried it on kernel:
> > 2.6.17-1.2174_FC5
> > with no difference.... same problem.
> > Anyone have an idea for this?
> >
>
> no ideas, but same thing happens here, with debian
> unstable:
>
> % grep squeak /etc/apt/sources.list
> deb http://ftp.squeak.org/debian/ unstable main
> contrib non-free
> % cat /proc/version
> Linux version 2.6.15.2 (jpc@krazykat) (gcc version
> 4.0.3 20060128 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-8)) #1
> PREEMPT Fri Feb 3 16:48:19 EST 2006
> % squeak -version
> 3.9-7 #1 Sat Aug  5 23:08:06 CEST 2006 gcc 3.3.5
> Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021]
> Linux shire 2.6.8-3-686 #1 Sat Jul 15 10:32:25 UTC
> 2006 i686 GNU/Linux
> default plugin location: /usr/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so
> % ls -l /usr/share/squeak/squeak3.9.image.gz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7616104 Sep 11 02:47
> /usr/share/squeak/squeak3.9.image.gz
>
> john
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> [hidden email]
>

> Here is my squeak version:
>
> ~$ squeak -version
> 3.9-7 #5 Mon Apr 24 20:07:28 PDT 2006 gcc 3.3.5
> Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021]
> Linux vps.piumarta.com
> 2.4.20-021stab028.18.777-enterprise #1 SMP Wed Sep 14
> 19:34:46 MSD 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
> default plugin location:
> /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so
>
>
> ...And it is not a feeling, you can see perfectly how
> all go slower.