[Cuis] Curious drawing performance issue

Phil (list) pbpublist at gmail.com
Fri Aug 14 13:50:52 CDT 2015 

On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 12:42 -0400, Dan Norton wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2015 at 16:01, Phil (list) wrote:
> 
> > 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'.
> > 
> 
> Rummaging around in my system reveals:
> 
> Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
> 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2125 CPU @
> 3.30 GHz
> 
> All Programs>Accessories>System Tools>Resource Monitor shows:
> 
> an appalling (to me, at least) >170 threads "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every 
> problem looks like a nail" sitting there quietly for the most part. Resource Monitor shows four 
> "CPUs" with CPU 1 and CPU 3 parked. Total CPU usage < 1%.
> 

So you've got a dual core processor with hyperthreading (4 logical
cores)...

> When Cuis is started, the Squeak.exe starts out with 17 threads, then eventually settles to 6 
> threads. Total CPU usage < 1%.
> 
> When BouncingAtoms is running, set up as above, CPU 1 and CPU 3 remain parked, CPU 0 
> < 5%, and CPU 2 > 95%. Occasionally something (GC?) cranks CPU 0 to 85 - 90% briefly.
> 
> When BouncingAtoms is stopped, all return to CPU 0 < 5%, CPU 2 <1%, CPU 1 and CPU 3 
> parked.
> 

Given your above processor info, divide the 10-14% (the idle usage
reported by Cuis) by 4 to get what you should roughly be seeing in
overall system CPU utilization (i.e. 2.5-3.5%, assuming not much else is
going on on the system)  Since the Squeak VM is single threaded for
Smalltalk code the most you should ever see when Cuis is fully busy is
~25% CPU utilization (i.e. 100% of a single core)

> So, the question is why should Cuis process browser report that Morphic UI is consuming 10 
> - 14% ?
> 

That is the question and it relates to why BouncingAtomsMorph is
performing so poorly in Cuis vs. Squeak.  Something is going on (even
when Cuis is '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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

More information about the Cuis mailing list