When this will be in the official VMs? And to use or benefit this  
improvement should
previous code (especially Seaside, I'm using it) be modified?

Thanks


On May 1, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> 2009/4/30 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>> A better benchmark is attached. It allows adjusting the number of  
>> processes
>> and the total time the benchmark should run and answers the number of
>> process switches per second. This is our "standard" process switch
>> benchmark. Run it like here:
>>
>> 100 "processes" benchSwitch: 5. "seconds"
>>
>
> I have built a new VM with closure support (VMMaker.dtl.120).
> A changeset can be loaded to VMMaker w/o changes, except changing the
> Interpreter class redefinition.
> All is needed is to add 3 class vars to Interpreter manually:
> ProcessActionIndex InterruptedProcessIndex InterruptProcessIndex
>
> Running squeak-3.10 (no closure compiler).
>
> 100 "processes" benchSwitch: 5. "seconds"
>
> Processor fallbackToOldScheduler
>
> '1,156,135 switches/sec'
> '1,144,994 switches/sec'
> '1,147,744 switches/sec'
>
> AdvancedProcessorScheduler install
>
> '148,067 switches/sec'
> '141,211 switches/sec'
> '141,692 switches/sec'
> '148,650 switches/sec'
>
> (1156/148) ~~ 7.8 ratio
>
>
>
>> This will switch between 100 processes for 5 seconds.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>
>>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A quick comparion for Delays:
>>>>
>>>>       delay := Delay forMilliseconds: 1.
>>>>       bag := Bag new.
>>>>       1000 timesRepeat:[bag add: [delay wait] timeToRun].
>>>>       bag sortedCounts
>>>>
>>>> on my 4-core box it yields:
>>>>
>>>> - with AdvancedProcessorScheduler install
>>>>  a SortedCollection(951->2 49->1)
>>>>
>>>> - with Processor fallbackToOldScheduler
>>>>  a SortedCollection(953->2 47->1)
>>>>
>>>> - with old VM
>>>>  a SortedCollection(952->2 47->1 1->3)
>>>>
>>>> not much overhead huh? :)
>>>
>>> That's not exactly the kind of benchmark I was looking for (if your
>>> process scheduler takes milliseconds to do a switch I think we're  
>>> not even
>>> close to the ballpark ;-) More interesting for comparison is this  
>>> (requires
>>> closures):
>>>
>>>  semas := Array new: 10000.
>>>  plist := Array new: 10000.
>>>  1 to: semas size do:[:i| semas at: i put: Semaphore new].
>>>  1 to: plist size-1 do:[:i| plist at: i put: [(semas at: i) wait.  
>>> (semas
>>> at:i+1) signal] fork].
>>>  [semas first signal. semas last wait] timeToRun.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>  - Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>