Right, it has nothing to do with commonSend and cache.
Being stubborn I added cache hit / misses counters to the vm but it showed 
nothing significant except a very good ratio : 95 to 98%  :)

In addition, putting the squeak process to a lowest priority (even "idle") 
seems to make it run much faster (!!!).
Strange Windows.

Regards

Alain

"Levente Uzonyi" <leves at elte.hu> a écrit dans le message de news: 
Pine.LNX.4.64.1005211945090.15643 at login01.caesar.elte.hu...
> On Fri, 21 May 2010, Alain_Rastoul wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I recently tryed then 4.1 and discovered a strange behavior that 
>> appearead
>> to be true with the 3.10 also.
>> The test is simply running benchFib in series of runs.
>> If I run the test 10 times, on of the run is about 2-3 times faster than 
>> the
>> others, and I can't explain that.
>>
>> 10 timesRepeat: [
>> | r t |
>>   t := Time millisecondsToRun: [r := 26 benchFib].
>>   Transcript show: ((r * 1000) // t) ; cr.
>> ]
>
> I can't reproduce this. I think it's just noise from your OS. But try to 
> evaluate this:
>
> [
>  ((1 to: 100)
>  collect: [ :run |
>  (Integer >> #benchFib) flushCache.
>  [ 26 benchFib ] timeToRunWithoutGC ]) sort ] valueAt: 80.
>
> If you get the same results, then GC and caching doesn't change the 
> behavior, so you can be pretty sure that it's just OS-noise. Try 
> increasing the priority of Squeak's process and repeat the tests.
>
>
> Levente
>
>>
>> will give me 10 numbers about 2486297 (one of the runs)
>> but one run will give me 10 numbers about 6773017.
>> I stopped all I could stop on my laptop and nothing else but squeak is
>> running...
>> I made a TimeProfileBrowser and the inner loop of the profile seems to 
>> show
>> that primitives are more than 2 times faster.
>> (and everything seems 2 times faster)
>> Anybody noticed that (I searched the web but found nothing) ?
>> primitive calls ?
>> methodCache?
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Alain
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>