On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 01:00:03PM +0100, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> >>
> >>On Jan 1, 2021, at 9:43 PM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>???On a Pi 4 - 
> >>>
> >>>(Time millisecondsToRun:[ 25 benchFib ]) > 200
> >>>     or: [ (Time millisecondsToRun: [ 64 benchmark ]) > 200 ]
> >>
> >>19mS & 143mS
> >>

That certainly does not sound "slow" to me :-)   Would you want the
Pi 4 to be treated as slow, or is this a case of the PI arm platform
actually moving into the "fast" category?


> Perhaps it's sufficient to measure the uptime and estimate the machine's 
> performance based on that value. On slower machines it should take longer 
> to get to the same point in the startup process.
> 
> By uptime I mean what's shown in the VM stats:
> 
> | vmStartTime uptime |
> vmStartTime := Smalltalk vmParameterAt: 20.
> uptime := vmStartTime ~= 0 "utcMicrosecondClock at startup in later Spur 
> VMs"
> 	ifTrue: [Time utcMicrosecondClock - vmStartTime + 500 // 1000]
> 	ifFalse: [Time eventMillisecondClock].
> 
> which may be simplified to:
> 
> | uptime |
> uptime := Time utcMicrosecondClock - (Smalltalk vmParameterAt: 20) + 500 // 
> 1000.
> 
> 
> Levente

This is a good simple approach that might give a better overall measure
of "slow" in the case of Raspberry Pi. However, I don't think that VM
parameter 20 is implemented on SqueakJS.

Dave