Why we have Behavior >> flushCache?

what is the cache flushed?

I think that your point is valid and it would be good to do it.

Stef

On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:

> Hi. As far as I can see,
>
> Behavior >> flushCache
>     "Tell the interpreter to remove the contents of its method lookup cache, if it has
>     one.  Essential.  See Object documentation whatIsAPrimitive."
>
>     <primitive: 89>
>     self primitiveFailed
>
>
> And primitive 89 does nothing in particular with the receiver (the class in this case). In both, InterpreterVM and Cog, the WHOLE cache is flushed, there is NOTHING related to the receiver class. Of course, that's at least what it looks for me (please tell me if I am wrong).
> So...if this is the case, wouldn't make sense to move it elsewhere?  like Smalltalk flushCache or Smalltalk vm flushCache  (and it is a good moment to reify the VM). So after we can do: Smalltalk vm version. Smalltlak vm flushCache, Smalltalk vm parameterAt:  , etc....
>
> If you don't like doing "Smalltalk vm" then we can create a VM class with all class methods, or a singleton and use #current or a singleton and put it in Smalltalk globals...etc
>
> We will need to fix a couple of senders, thus.
>
> What do you think?  For me is really confusing, and you don't understand it until you see the primitive implementation.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>

Not using the receiver is indeed misleading. I thought it simply flushes the cache for a particular class

Alexandre

On 26 Apr 2011, at 06:34, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:

> Hi. As far as I can see,
>
> Behavior >> flushCache
>     "Tell the interpreter to remove the contents of its method lookup cache, if it has
>     one.  Essential.  See Object documentation whatIsAPrimitive."
>
>     <primitive: 89>
>     self primitiveFailed
>
>
> And primitive 89 does nothing in particular with the receiver (the class in this case). In both, InterpreterVM and Cog, the WHOLE cache is flushed, there is NOTHING related to the receiver class. Of course, that's at least what it looks for me (please tell me if I am wrong).
> So...if this is the case, wouldn't make sense to move it elsewhere?  like Smalltalk flushCache or Smalltalk vm flushCache  (and it is a good moment to reify the VM). So after we can do: Smalltalk vm version. Smalltlak vm flushCache, Smalltalk vm parameterAt:  , etc....
>
> If you don't like doing "Smalltalk vm" then we can create a VM class with all class methods, or a singleton and use #current or a singleton and put it in Smalltalk globals...etc
>
> We will need to fix a couple of senders, thus.
>
> What do you think?  For me is really confusing, and you don't understand it until you see the primitive implementation.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

How about putting such methods on an Interpreter class?

On 2011-04-26, at 14:35, Alexandre Bergel wrote:

> Not using the receiver is indeed misleading. I thought it simply flushes the cache for a particular class
>
> Alexandre
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2011, at 06:34, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> Hi. As far as I can see,
>>
>> Behavior >> flushCache
>>    "Tell the interpreter to remove the contents of its method lookup cache, if it has
>>    one.  Essential.  See Object documentation whatIsAPrimitive."
>>
>>    <primitive: 89>
>>    self primitiveFailed
>>
>>
>> And primitive 89 does nothing in particular with the receiver (the class in this case). In both, InterpreterVM and Cog, the WHOLE cache is flushed, there is NOTHING related to the receiver class. Of course, that's at least what it looks for me (please tell me if I am wrong).
>> So...if this is the case, wouldn't make sense to move it elsewhere?  like Smalltalk flushCache or Smalltalk vm flushCache  (and it is a good moment to reify the VM). So after we can do: Smalltalk vm version. Smalltlak vm flushCache, Smalltalk vm parameterAt:  , etc....
>>
>> If you don't like doing "Smalltalk vm" then we can create a VM class with all class methods, or a singleton and use #current or a singleton and put it in Smalltalk globals...etc
>>
>> We will need to fix a couple of senders, thus.
>>
>> What do you think?  For me is really confusing, and you don't understand it until you see the primitive implementation.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Mariano
>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>>
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

How about putting such methods on an Interpreter class?

that's why I was saying by "reify the VM"

 

On 2011-04-26, at 14:35, Alexandre Bergel wrote:

> Not using the receiver is indeed misleading. I thought it simply flushes the cache for a particular class
>
> Alexandre
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2011, at 06:34, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> Hi. As far as I can see,
>>
>> Behavior >> flushCache
>>    "Tell the interpreter to remove the contents of its method lookup cache, if it has
>>    one.  Essential.  See Object documentation whatIsAPrimitive."
>>
>>    <primitive: 89>
>>    self primitiveFailed
>>
>>
>> And primitive 89 does nothing in particular with the receiver (the class in this case). In both, InterpreterVM and Cog, the WHOLE cache is flushed, there is NOTHING related to the receiver class. Of course, that's at least what it looks for me (please tell me if I am wrong).
>> So...if this is the case, wouldn't make sense to move it elsewhere?  like Smalltalk flushCache or Smalltalk vm flushCache  (and it is a good moment to reify the VM). So after we can do: Smalltalk vm version. Smalltlak vm flushCache, Smalltalk vm parameterAt:  , etc....
>>
>> If you don't like doing "Smalltalk vm" then we can create a VM class with all class methods, or a singleton and use #current or a singleton and put it in Smalltalk globals...etc
>>
>> We will need to fix a couple of senders, thus.
>>
>> What do you think?  For me is really confusing, and you don't understand it until you see the primitive implementation.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Mariano
>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>>
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Mariano,

    the point is that it is classes that manage adding methods to classes and hence it is their private behavior to flush the VM's method cache.  

You'll see "self flushCache" in Smalltalk-80 v2 images.

 Now of course the VM provides selective cache flushing but back in the day adding or removing a method implied flushing the whole cache.  Personally I don't see that this justifies adding Smalltalk vm yet.  I would wait until you have a few more use cases.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi. As far as I can see,

Behavior >> flushCache
    "Tell the interpreter to remove the contents of its method lookup cache, if it has
    one.  Essential.  See Object documentation whatIsAPrimitive."

    <primitive: 89>
    self primitiveFailed


And primitive 89 does nothing in particular with the receiver (the class in this case). In both, InterpreterVM and Cog, the WHOLE cache is flushed, there is NOTHING related to the receiver class. Of course, that's at least what it looks for me (please tell me if I am wrong).
So...if this is the case, wouldn't make sense to move it elsewhere?  like Smalltalk flushCache or Smalltalk vm flushCache  (and it is a good moment to reify the VM). So after we can do: Smalltalk vm version. Smalltlak vm flushCache, Smalltalk vm parameterAt:  , etc....

If you don't like doing "Smalltalk vm" then we can create a VM class with all class methods, or a singleton and use #current or a singleton and put it in Smalltalk globals...etc

We will need to fix a couple of senders, thus.

What do you think?  For me is really confusing, and you don't understand it until you see the primitive implementation.

Cheers

--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:

Mariano,

    the point is that it is classes that manage adding methods to classes and hence it is their private behavior to flush the VM's method cache.  

Ok...I agree, but still it is misleading when we are talking about "method cache". Because methods are in classes...so I promise everybody that didn't know and you ask what Behavior >> flushCache does, and everybody will say that it flushed the cache of the methods of that class, not the whole cache. I can understand CompiledMethod >> flushCache and even Symbol >> flushCache ... but this one looks really strange.
 

You'll see "self flushCache" in Smalltalk-80 v2 images.

that makes more sense indeed
 

 Now of course the VM provides selective cache flushing but back in the day adding or removing a method implied flushing the whole cache.  Personally I don't see that this justifies adding Smalltalk vm yet.  I would wait until you have a few more use cases.

Sorry but in this case, I disagree. I think the opposite: it is the perfect moment to reify the VM in the image and start using it. Why?  exactly because right now we have few uses and it is really easy to migrate. In fact, for Behavior >> flushCache there are only 3 senders.  And I don't pretend to remove them right now, but with the normal deprecation policy. This is, in Pharo 1.3 we let the messages like Behavior >> flushCache,  SmalltalkImage >> vmVersion, etc. But we let them as deprecated explaining that now they should use XXX. And of course, inside the image we do fix the senders.

In fact, in Pharo 1.3, the method SmalltalkImage >> vm
    "Answer the object to query about virtual machine."
   
    ^self

already exists :)

I see the following possible behavior for VM right now (I mean, the following methods are already in SmalltalkImage):

- #flushCache
- #buildDate
- #interpreterSourceVersion
- #platformSourceVersion
- #versionLabel
- #extraVMMemory
- #extraVMMemory:
- #gcBiasToGrow:
- #gcBiasToGrowLimit:
- #getVMParameters
- #primitiveGCBiasToGrow:
- #vmParameterAt:
-#vmParameterAt:put:
- #reportCPUandRAM
- #vmStatisticsReportString
- #vmStatisticsShortString

So....I think they are enough. And the sooner we do this, the easier it would be to reify the VM in the image.

Cheers

Mariano

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi. As far as I can see,

Behavior >> flushCache
    "Tell the interpreter to remove the contents of its method lookup cache, if it has
    one.  Essential.  See Object documentation whatIsAPrimitive."

    <primitive: 89>
    self primitiveFailed


And primitive 89 does nothing in particular with the receiver (the class in this case). In both, InterpreterVM and Cog, the WHOLE cache is flushed, there is NOTHING related to the receiver class. Of course, that's at least what it looks for me (please tell me if I am wrong).
So...if this is the case, wouldn't make sense to move it elsewhere?  like Smalltalk flushCache or Smalltalk vm flushCache  (and it is a good moment to reify the VM). So after we can do: Smalltalk vm version. Smalltlak vm flushCache, Smalltalk vm parameterAt:  , etc....

If you don't like doing "Smalltalk vm" then we can create a VM class with all class methods, or a singleton and use #current or a singleton and put it in Smalltalk globals...etc

We will need to fix a couple of senders, thus.

What do you think?  For me is really confusing, and you don't understand it until you see the primitive implementation.

Cheers

--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com