slow FreeCell (was: Re: Morphic slow in 2.8 (was: Forecast))

David Farber dfarber at numenor.com
Mon Oct 9 20:40:56 UTC 2000


I got (for 8, 16 & 32 bits):

Squeak 2.7-1782  - 30104  23784   4737
Squeak 2.9a-2773 - 39186  33839  10375

quite a slow down there...

my processor is a 200MHz Pentium MMX. i use a 2.7 VM (1/16/00) with the 2.7
image and the 2.8Build2 VM (5/24/00) with the 2.9 image.

david

At 03:00 PM 10/6/00 -0700, you wrote:
>David,
>
>We are getting closer. Looking at the following:
>
>> ====Squeak 2.7-1782
>> 0.44	 avg. mSecs/op -- Displaying span buffer
>> 0.34	 avg. mSecs/op -- Displaying span buffer
>> 0.06	 avg. mSecs/op -- Displaying span buffer
>
>> ====Squeak 2.9a-2773
>> 0.56	 avg. mSecs/op -- Displaying span buffer
>> 0.48	 avg. mSecs/op -- Displaying span buffer
>> 0.14	 avg. mSecs/op -- Displaying span buffer
>
>It seems like we have some serious overhead in the display part. Okay, let's
>try to find out if that happens in BitBlt or in the engine itself. Run the
>following:
>
>| bb span |
>span _ Form extent: Display width @ 1 depth: 32.
>span fillWhite.
>bb _ BitBlt toForm: Display.
>bb 
>	sourceForm: span;
>	sourceRect: span boundingBox;
>	colorMap: (Color colorMapIfNeededFrom: 32 to: Display depth);
>	combinationRule: 34.
>[	Display deferUpdates: true.
>	1 to: 100 do:[:j|
>		1 to: Display height do:[:i|
>			bb copyBitsFrom: 0 to: Display width at: i]].
>	Display deferUpdates: false.
>] timeToRun.
>
>And let's see if and how the results differ. Oh, and by the way, two
>questions: Are you running the same VM with the two images?! Also, what
>processor are you running on?! (e.g., Intel, AMD, or whatever).
>
> - Andreas
>
>
--
David Farber
dfarber at numenor.com





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list