[Vm-dev] faster snapshot support in VM?
nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 17:25:58 UTC 2009
agree, cloning an image is functionnally the same as returning from snapshot...
The difference here is that we haven't performed the cleanup before snapshot :(
So my scheme was more or less to release all external pointers in the
clone before snapshoting, without performing any OS action (like
flushing stream buffers etc...).
But I should check what fork() really do exactly about allocated
ressources, because it's a long time since I last use this kind of
The only interest of this approach was to lazily rely on already
optimized OS features, but you already convinced me this was not
portable, so beat it :)
2009/7/17 Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>:
> 2009/7/17 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>:
>> OK, thanks to all,
>> OS dependency is a good reason, we definitely prefer the more portable
>> Smalltalk way :)
>> Still, cloning an image with a HydraVM would be a portable option :)
>> (Efficient if pages can be optimized for copy-on-write which is again
>> an OS-dependent feature I presume...).
>> Maybe I'll give a try in Unix just for fun, or I'll have a deeper look
>> on what's going on exactly.
> Nicolas, if your image is a complete sandbox, which using no any
> external resources , then a proposed
> approach makes sense. But in most cases it is not, and i don't see how
> external resources, allocated by different primitives/plugins can be
> safely 'cloned'/forked.
> So, i think, we should focus on improving snapshot/startup code on
> image side, not in VM.
>> 2009/7/17 David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>:
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:36:45AM +0200, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>>>> In recent pharo thread
>>>> [Pharo-project] Save and quit vs. Save - a clue to performance???
>>>> it is said that saveAndQuit is amazingly fast, while save is damned slow...
>>>> ... because it goes through all image startup.
>>>> Cloning the vm/image could be more efficient:
>>>> "return true if we are in the forked image, false in the original"
>>>> <primitive: XXX>
>>>> self error: 'fork failed'
>>>> self primFork ifTrue: [
>>>> self aboutToSnapshot.
>>>> self primSaveAndQuit.
>>>> self returnFromSnapshot].
>>> The primFork that you describe has been part of OSProcess for a long
>>> time. The #primitiveForkSqueakprimitiveForkSqueak primitive is in the
>>> unix flavor of OSProcessPlugin, so it's probably already in whatever
>>> unix VM you are running today. For what you describe, you would probably
>>> want to invoke it with UnixProcess>>forkHeadlessSqueakAndDoThenQuit:
>>> So you can just try it and see if it gives the performance you want.
>>>> Apart being dependent on another feature of the OS, do you know any
>>>> reason why this would not work?
>>> It definitely does work, but it is very OS dependent, and that's an
>>> extremely good reason for not doing it as a general solution.
>>> I don't understand why save should be "amazingly slow". What's going
>>> on in the image startup that would cause this be become an issue? It
>>> sounds to me like somebody is not checking the resuming flag in a
>>> #startup: method, hence running a bunch of initialization code that
>>> is not required after an image save.
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Vm-dev