[Cuis] Curious drawing performance issue

[Dan Norton]

On 13 Aug 2015 at 2:29, Phil (list) wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 22:17 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> > Hi Phil,
> > 
> > On Windows 7 with Cuis loaded and idle, Windows Task Manager >
> Performance reports 0% 
> > CPU Usage. Memory Usage is 1.28 GB.
> > 
> 
> What does the cpu usage show via World Menu -> Open... -> Process
> Browser for Morphic?
> 

It shows 12%.

> > With BouncingAtoms morphExtent: 500 at 450, stepTime 0, nAtoms 5000
> the report is 24 - 
> > 25% CPU Usage, 1.28 GB Memory Usage, 2 - 6 fps.
> > 
> 
> OK, so it's not platform specific poor performance.  If you close
> the
> BouncingAtomsMorph and wait for things to settle for a few seconds,
> what
> does Process Browser show the Morphic cpu usage as??
>

It shows 40%. However, Win7 shows 1 - 2%. Using Process Browser to measure absolute as 
opposed to relative CPU usage seems inaccurate to me. The /difference/ in Process Browser 
numbers while atoms is running vs not running agree with Win7: 1 - 2%.

I don't like for something to try to measure its own performance :-) - an independent 
instrument is preferable IMHO.
 
> > Cuis 4.2 2449, cogwin 15.22.3370
> > 
> >  - Dan
> > 
> 
> Thanks,
> Phil
> 
> > On 12 Aug 2015 at 17:44, Phil (list) wrote:
> > 
> > > I should also mention that the Morph window is ~ 500x450 and
> > > #stepTime
> > > is set to 0 for anyone who wants to try to replicate...
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 17:36 -0400, Phil (list) wrote:
> > > > I noticed a while back that something appeared to be going on
> with
> > > Cuis
> > > > drawing performance (at idle on my system Morphic consumes
> ~20% of
> > > VM
> > > > CPU *miniumum* according to ProcessBrowser) and this seems to
> give
> > > an
> > > > indication of what it's currently costing in drawing
> > > performance...
> > > > 
> > > > After seeing the Squeak 5.0 announcement, I was curious to
> see
> > > roughly
> > > > how much of a speed boost we might be able to expect from
> Spur
> > > down the
> > > > road.  So I decided to look at BouncingAtomsMorph to try to
> get a
> > > rough
> > > > apples-to-apples comparison and was quite surprised: Spur
> was
> > > faster,
> > > > but it was too much faster.  So I dropped back to Squeak 4.5
> and
> > > it also
> > > > performs much, much better than the Cuis version on the same
> VM.  
> > > Here
> > > > are the numbers I'm seeing using BouncingAtomsMorph with
> roughly
> > > > comparable (i.e. eyeballed) morph sizes and atom count set
> to
> > > 5000:
> > > > Squeak 5.0 (Spur VM from all-in-one download): 29-31 fps
> > > > Squeak 4.5 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 24-26 fps
> > > > Cuis 2440 (Cog VM 15.25.3390): 6-8 fps
> > > > 
> > > > Granted BouncingAtomsMorph is not 100% identical from a
> source
> > > code
> > > > standpoint but it's not nearly different enough where I'd
> expect
> > > that
> > > > sort of difference.  Is this a platform-specific issue (I'm
> on
> > > Linux) or
> > > > are others noticing drawing issues as well?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Cuis mailing list
> > > Cuis at jvuletich.org
> > > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cuis mailing list
> > Cuis at jvuletich.org
> > http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org