[Cuis] Curious drawing performance issue

[Phil (list)]

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 11:11 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> 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.

True, the external monitoring tools will tend to give you a better
absolute picture as there may be some VM overhead (esp if plugins are
involved) that Process Browser can't see.  However, CPU utilization as
reported by the OS isn't terribly helpful unless you know how many cores
the system has, was anything else active at the time, etc.
ProcessBrowser, while limited, avoids all that since it shows what was
used vs what was available to it. (usually 100/<num cores> % of total
system CPU)  Just seemed to make for a better apples to apples
comparison in this case to see if you are having the same issue re:
Morphic chewing up cycles while otherwise 'idle'.

>  
> > > 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org