Hi Andreas,

Andreas Raab wrote:
> ...
> This is tricky with MessageTally. There are several issues to keep in 
> mind, some of which you can fix, some of which you can't. Here we go:
>
> 1) Observing all Processes
> --------------------------
> First, MessageTally only observes the block you are running, not the 
> entire system. For example, if you were to profile this:
>
> done := Semaphore new.
> worker:= [
>     10 timesRepeat:[World changed; displayWorld].
>     done signal.
> ] fork.
> MessageTally spyOn:[done wait].
>
> This is what you'd get:
>
> **Tree**
> 100.0% {2367ms} primitives
>
> **Leaves**
> 100.0% {2367ms} UndefinedObject>>DoIt
>
> Obviously it's not actually measuring what is going on during the 
> period of time which is a real problem if you are trying to measure 
> server load in general. But it's fixable.
> ...
I found all this stuff very interesting and useful. Thanks!

WRT issue 1), what I'd really like is the tally tree to have several 
roots, one for each forked process. Otherwise, the process that forks 
other processes would also have their tallies added to him (which is 
wrong, as it would appear to be using more time than it really did). 
Fixing this, MessageTally could give a better insight on cpu usage than 
#tallyCPUUsageFor:.

To do this, I'd need to find out for a certain context in the sender 
chain, on which process it was running. (Then, when building the tally 
tree, I could know that I need to add a new root.) Do you know how to 
find out? I spent a couple of hours on this, and it seems it is not 
possible...

Thanks,
Juan Vuletich

Ps. I found that the problem with long primitives first appears in your 
3.9.1 VM, and that BitBlt seems to slow down a bit in 3.7.1 and even 
more in 3.9.1. Are you planning to address this issues in the Windows VM?