Squeak-dev April 1999

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

130 participants
319 discussions

RE: [VM] NCM performance report
by Greg & Cindy Gritton 07 Apr '99

07 Apr '99

At 11:08 AM 4/6/99 +0100, you wrote: >> From: Dan Ingalls [mailto:DanI@wdi.disney.com] >> Sent: 25 March 1999 06:15 >[...] >> We have been considering >> th NCM changes since Tim first got them working. Simplicity >> and malleability are certainly positive features. >> Performance, if it's real, is as well. >> >> The main reason I have balked at this change so far is the >> cost in space for small implementations >[...] >> A competing change we have been weighing for a long time is >> to do away with compact headers. This would add about the >> same amount of space (70k) to the mini image, but would yield >> greater simplifications and speedups in the virtual machine >> (IMO). > >[I know, I'm late as usual. I've been off-site for a couple of weeks and, >while I could get at my mailbox, I couldn't mail out] > >For interest, I tried bodging the SystemTracer to write out an image with >3-word headers for every object in the distribution 2.3 image. It took a >3.5Mb image to a shade over 5Mb if I made the correct changes --- a large >penalty on a PDA. The flip side is that some of us [hi Adrian] trying to >run multi-user systems on Squeak are willing to pay that space for a large >speedup if we could get one. I've had my head in the object allocation and >GC stuff, so may have a biased view, but it looks like some considerable >speed could be gained by doing away with the twisty turny maze of tests >about object formats. Has anyone done any experiments in this area? If >not, it looks like I'll have to do this anyway at some point, as adding an >optional fourth security word to the header causes all kinds of merry hell >if you try to keep the existing variable-length headers. > >All thoughts welcome! > > - Peter > > > The increase in size you report seems a little excessive. Counting the objects in an image stripped down to 2039KB I get 41939 objects with 1 word headers 3004 objects with 2 word headers (base + class) 652 objects with 3 word headers (base + class + size) 45595 total objects Converting all headers to 3 words should add 86882 words, or 347528 bytes, or 17% to the size of the image. (I am working on converting to 2 word headers, for an 8% increase in size. I am not using ImageTracer.) This is significantly smaller than your 42% increase. It could be you just have a very different image with lots of small objects, or you are doing something wrong, or I am counting wrong. You can try an experiment that will approximate the size of at least a 2-word header for your particular image. Just "uncompact" all of the compact classes except BlockContext and MethodContext. (Bad things will happen if you try to "uncompact" BlockContext or MethodContext.) The following code should do it: #(CompiledMethod Symbol Array PseudoContext LargePositiveInteger Float MethodDictionary Association Point Rectangle String TranslatedMethod Color Bitmap) do: [ :className | (Smalltalk at: className) becomeUncompact]. On my small image, this results in 43 objects with 1 word headers (only the contexts are left) 44903 objects with 2 word headers 652 objects with 3 word headers 45598 total objects This gives a final size of 2203KB, the expected 8% increase. Running the same thing on my 4235KB full Squeak 2.3 image (base image plus a few extras) results in a final size of 4520KB, for a 6.7% increase. Since the vast majority of objects are compact, converting to a 3 word format shouldn't much more than double the additional space of converting to a 2 word format. Greg Gritton

1 0

Re: Running Squeak on Linux
by "Gran" Hultgren 07 Apr '99

07 Apr '99

Hi! ---Ivan Brusic <ivan(a)cc.gatech.edu> wrote: > Hello fellow squeakers, > > I am unable to run Squeak on Linux. There are two different errors which > I get when trying to run Squeak: > > 1) When using Ian's precompiled VM (SqueakVM-2.3-i386-linux-2.0.36) or > using my own compiled VM (with the lastest sources) I get the following > error: > This visual class is not supported This has to do with X Windows. I got the same problem when trying to get Squeak to work with VNC. After looking in the VM code (sqXwindos.c - see below) it showed that Squeak does not support every possible X configuration when it comes to colors. I changed VNC to use PsuedoColors with 256 colors and everything works great. So I suggest that you check your colordepth that X uses, if its 256 you have to raise it to 65536 or change your color support from TrueColor/DirectColor to PseudoColor. Exerpt from: ftp://alix.inria.fr/pub/squeak/unix/Squeak/src/sqXWindow.c ---- switch (stVisual->class) { case PseudoColor: if (stBitsPerPixel == 8) break; else { fprintf(stderr, "This visual class is not supported\n"); exit(1); return; } case TrueColor: case DirectColor: getMaskbit(stVisual->red_mask, &stRNMask, &stRShift); getMaskbit(stVisual->green_mask, &stGNMask, &stGShift); getMaskbit(stVisual->blue_mask, &stBNMask, &stBShift); if (stBitsPerPixel == 16) { stHasSameRGBMask16= (stVisual->red_mask == (0x1f << 10) && stVisual->green_mask == (0x1f << 5) && stVisual->blue_mask == (0x1f)); break; } else if (stBitsPerPixel == 32) { stHasSameRGBMask32= (stVisual->red_mask == (0xff << 16) && stVisual->green_mask == (0xff << 8) && stVisual->blue_mask == (0xff)); break; } else { fprintf(stderr, "This visual class is not supported\n"); exit(1); return; } case GrayScale: case StaticColor: case StaticGray: default: fprintf(stderr, "This visual class is not supported\n"); exit(1); return; } ----- So reading this correct I assume that 256 colors is OK in PseudoColor but when using TrueColor or DirectColor you need 65536 or ~2 million colors (16 or 32 bits). Wll, that's my two cents. regards, Gran === Gran Hultgren, gohu(a)rocketmail.com, icq#:6136722 GSM: +46 709 472152, http://195.22.65.4 "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Than they fight you. Then you win." -- Gandhi _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

3 3

Re: [REQ]Remove InputSensor>>mousePoint
by Reinier van Loon 07 Apr '99

07 Apr '99

Joachim, you're right on all counts. I've learned someting, thanks! Maybe we should leave it as it is then, although 3 message sends for getting the cursor point are a bit overdone... Thanks again, Reinier.

1 0

RE: Browser alternatives
by Norton, Chris 06 Apr '99

06 Apr '99

Hi Folks. Bob - This browser is seriously cool! The driller stuff you built with drag & drop methods, etc.. is a huge addition to Squeak. Thanks so much! ---==> Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Arning [SMTP:arning@charm.net] > Sent: Monday, April 05, 1999 1:25 PM > To: squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Browser alternatives > > A furher exploration of browser alternatives is available at: > > http://www.charm.net/~arning/BobsBrowser.5Apri1102am.cs.txt > > This one may hold greater appeal for category fans. This works in 2.3 (I > am currently at change set 746). > > Cheers, > Bob

1 0

RE: [VM] NCM performance report
by Tim Rowledge 06 Apr '99

06 Apr '99

On Tue 06 Apr, Peter Crowther wrote: > > Say possibly 4000 Closures in a ful image? If Closures were > > header/closureheader/bytecodepointer, that would add ~50kb to > > the image in > > return for quite a bit of performance, block temporaries > > (yay!) and block > > recursion. I'd go for that quite happily. > > And simplification in the debugger and interpreter, likely easier exception > handling, and my secure image being able to pass around security on block > invocations :-). 'Yes please' would be the polite way of putting it. So, Craig & Ian - how's dem Closures doing? :-) -- Why Dogs Hate WIn95:- 7) Barking in next cube keeps activating YOUR voice recognition Tim Rowledge: rowledge(a)interval.com (w) +1 (650) 842-6110 (w) tim(a)sumeru.stanford.edu (h) <http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim>

1 0

UniMouse: 3-button mouse for Macs
by Doug Way 06 Apr '99

06 Apr '99

For all the 1-button Mac Squeakers out there, there's a new 3-button USB mouse called the UniMouse, which I purchased recently and is worthy of recommendation. (I grew weary of holding down the option/command keys, myself... although I agree that it's important for Squeak to be at least functional in 1-button environments.) Anyway, the UniMouse has 3 buttons, a large left and right button and a smaller middle button. The mouse is large and oblong and generally feels pretty nice, though, especially if you currently have one of the cute-but-difficult-to-orient circular iMac mice. The website is at: http://www.contourdesign.com/unimouse.htm There are a bunch of drivers on the website, including the Squeak button combination of click, option-click, command-click for left, middle, right (or reversed for lefties). It also comes in a variety of translucent colors (a la the new iMac colors), but being a USB mouse, it will only work on newer Macs such as iMacs and the new G3's. They're also becoming available at various mail order sources such as MacMall, I believe... - Doug Way EAI/Transom Technogies, Ann Arbor, MI dway(a)eai.com, dway(a)mat.net http://www.transom.com Smalltalk: Guaranteed Y2T Compliant

2 1

RE: [VM] NCM performance report
by Dan Ingalls 06 Apr '99

06 Apr '99

Peter - >For interest, I tried bodging the SystemTracer to write out an image with >3-word headers for every object in the distribution 2.3 image. It took a >3.5Mb image to a shade over 5Mb if I made the correct changes --- a large >penalty on a PDA. To argue the agressive side, the space penalty is not that bad. It is much easier to compute than running the ST, but if you want to do that, then compare it with a normally written ST image. The reason is that Squeak shrinks the display before snapshotting, but the ST does not. >The flip side is that some of us [hi Adrian] trying to >run multi-user systems on Squeak are willing to pay that space for a large >speedup if we could get one. I've had my head in the object allocation and >GC stuff, so may have a biased view, but it looks like some considerable >speed could be gained by doing away with the twisty turny maze of tests >about object formats. Has anyone done any experiments in this area? I wouldn't call it twisty-turny, but it IS an extra memory cycle. As I say, we have been withholding judgement until Ian has a nearly final version of Jitter running. This is because 1. He may be able to circumvent the most common tests for compact classes, and 2. The faster JII goes, the more any(!) wasted cycles will matter. >If not, it looks like I'll have to do this anyway at some point, as adding an >optional fourth security word to the header causes all kinds of merry hell >if you try to keep the existing variable-length headers. > >All thoughts welcome! > > - Peter

1 0

RE: [VM] NCM performance report
by Peter Crowther 06 Apr '99

06 Apr '99

> Say possibly 4000 Closures in a ful image? If Closures were > header/closureheader/bytecodepointer, that would add ~50kb to > the image in > return for quite a bit of performance, block temporaries > (yay!) and block > recursion. I'd go for that quite happily. And simplification in the debugger and interpreter, likely easier exception handling, and my secure image being able to pass around security on block invocations :-). 'Yes please' would be the polite way of putting it. - Peter

1 0

[VM] NCM performance report
by Helge Horch 06 Apr '99

06 Apr '99

Folks, I've been running Tim Rowledge's NCM VM and image (see <http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim>) on win32 successfully for a while now. I'd like to offer a short performance report, because I think (and feel) that I get appreciable results. The two machines I have infected with Squeak are: A Toshiba Satellite 2520 (K6-2 at 300 MHz, 64 MB, Win98) and a Dell XPS system (P-II at 300 MHz, 128 MB, NT4SP4). The results have not failed to impress me: <Tosh/Win98> benchFib benchmark [approx.] [sends/s] [bytecodes/s] -------------------------------------------- Squeak 2.3b 595,000 10,245,000 NCMVM 2.3 734,453 10,869,000 Jitter 2.3b 994,000 16,233,000 <Dell/NT4SP4> benchFib benchmark [approx.] [sends/s] [bytecodes/s] -------------------------------------------- Squeak 2.3b 654,000 11,111,000 NCMVM 2.3 768,757 12,165,000 Jitter 2.3b 913,000 16,666,000 Please note that NCM ("new compiled method format") does not try to improve upon Jitter, it is an improvement upon the non-Jitter base VM/image (yet). I included the Jitter figures for relative comparison. As I said, I'm impressed. I have measured neither memory consumption nor J2 performance, though I'd be very curious if others have. At these significant rates, I wonder what a J2-NCM VM could do... All in all, I'd vote for merging Tim's improvements into mainline Squeak (2.5?). Not only does NCM enhance the malleability of the VM, it's faster too. How much more could we probably want? Regards, Helge -- Helge Horch, Helge.Horch(a)munich.netsurf.de, heho(a)gmx.de http://home.munich.netsurf.de/Helge.Horch O- "Minister of Investment in Expensive Electronic Equipment (IEEE)" 31ec 162e 4088 a228 6c6e 84bd 7ef0 026f 25f2 e590

5 5

AW: [ThingLab] Documentation complete!
by Torsten.Bergmann＠phaidros.com 06 Apr '99

06 Apr '99

Schau Dir das mal an. Interessant was man derzeit alles mit Squeak macht. Auch als Zip erhältlich. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Reinier van Loon [mailto:R.L.J.M.W.van.Loon@inter.nl.net] Gesendet am: Saturday, April 03, 1999 9:04 PM An: squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu Betreff: [ThingLab] Documentation complete! Folks, version 4 of the ThingLab documentation is available at http://www.2share.com/thinglab/ThingLab%20-%20index.html It is the first complete version (text and graphics)! It totals 614 kB, so those of you with slow connections, be careful. I've put a WinZipped version at http://www.2share.com/thinglab/ThingLabReport.zip (sorry for WinZip, maybe someone can tell me how to SqueakZip 'em?) The 5th version will have seen some reformatting, hyperlinks, typing corrections and look nicer. Happy Easter, Reinier.

1 0

Jump to page: