Hi Josh,

Couple of guesses:

#1: You might have some full GC issue in there. A single full GC can change
the entire picture in the below. Make sure that there are no full GCs in the
entire measure or else you will have to weigh in these factors.

#2: Make sure there aren't any other processes doing wild stuff while you're
measuring. MessageTally will attribute any time spent in other processes in
the place that got suspended.

#3: Check if you're using the same combinations of VMs/plugins.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:48 PM
> To: Squeak Mailing List
> Subject: Help with profiling some code?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm having a weird performance discrepancy between code in two
> different images.  The code is not the same, but the the part that is
> causing the performance hotspot should be.  Here are message tallies
> of the weird parts:
> 
> 	|      43.1% {1162ms} Transform>>transformTransform:
> 	|        29.3% {790ms} B3DRotation>>*
> 	|          |9.0% {243ms} B3DVector3>>cross:
> 	|          |  |3.0% {81ms} B3DVector3>>z
> 	|          |  |2.4% {65ms} B3DVector3>>x
> 	|          |8.4% {226ms} B3DRotation class>>a:b:c:d:
> 	|          |  |7.2% {194ms} B3DRotation>>a:b:c:d:
> 	|          |  |  6.0% {162ms} B3DRotation>>normalize
> 	|          |  |    2.4% {65ms} B3DRotation>>b
> 	|          |5.4% {146ms} B3DRotation>>bcd
> 	|          |  |3.0% {81ms} B3DVector3 class>>x:y:z:
> 	|          |4.2% {113ms} B3DRotation>>a
> 	|        12.6% {340ms} Transform>>transformVector:
> 	|          6.0% {162ms} B3DRotation>>asMatrix4x4
> 	|          3.6% {97ms} B3DMatrix4x4>>localDirToGlobal:
> 	|          2.4% {65ms} B3DVector3(FloatArray)>>*=
> 
> (and the other one)
> 
> 	|        65.8% {4223ms} Transform>>transformTransform:
> 	|          35.4% {2272ms} B3DRotation>>*
> 	|            |13.6% {873ms} B3DVector3>>cross:
> 	|            |  |4.3% {276ms} B3DVector3 class>>x:y:z:
> 	|            |  |  |2.9% {186ms} primitives
> 	|            |  |4.1% {263ms} B3DVector3>>z
> 	|            |  |3.5% {225ms} B3DVector3>>x
> 	|            |11.3% {725ms} B3DRotation class>>a:b:c:d:
> 	|            |  |10.4% {667ms} B3DRotation>>a:b:c:d:
> 	|            |  |  9.6% {616ms} B3DRotation>>normalize
> 	|            |  |    2.6% {167ms} Float(Number)>>squared
> 	|            |3.5% {225ms} B3DRotation>>bcd
> 	|            |  2.9% {186ms} B3DVector3 class>>x:y:z:
> 	|          27.0% {1733ms} Transform>>transformVector:
> 	|            |14.8% {950ms} B3DRotation>>asMatrix4x4
> 	|            |  |4.6% {295ms} B3DRotation>>matrixClass
> 	|            |  |2.3% {148ms} B3DMatrix4x4>>a11:
> 	|            |11.0% {706ms} B3DMatrix4x4>>localDirToGlobal:
> 	|            |  2.6% {167ms} B3DMatrix4x4>>a31
> 	|            |  2.3% {148ms} B3DVector3 class>>x:y:z:
> 	|          2.6% {167ms} Transform>>translation:
> 
> The method Transform>>tranformTransform: is a double dispatch that
> you needn't concern yourself with.  The code for the method is the
> same in both images.  Notice that even though #* is called on 
> B3DRotation the same number of times (I verified this), it takes
> more than twice as long to run in the second image.
> 
> I decided to try to exercise just that method with the following code:
> 
> | b1 b2 |
> b1 := B3DRotation axis: (1 at 4@3) normalized angle: 56.
> b2 := B3DRotation axis: (2 at 5@7) normalized angle: 22.222.
> [30000 timesRepeat: [b1 * b2 * b1 * b2]] timeToRun
> 
> I ran the snippet a bunch of times in both images, and they both
> took roughly the same time.
> 
> I tried garbage-collecting, and restarting each image.  Neither
> made any difference.  Does anyone have any hints about how to 
> approach this?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Joshua
>