[Cuis] Curious drawing performance issue

[Phil (list)]

On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 10:24 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> 
> I won't spoil your fun, so instead of explaining the difference between 
> Squeak and Cuis here, I give you a suggestion: Use the profiler.
> 

I will do that right... hey, where did the profiler option go in
ProcessBrowser?  Well, ok, I'll just do it manually with
#spyOnProcess:... grr!  I see it was taken out in 2409.  Now you're just
having fun with me...

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
> 
> On 8/12/2015 6:36 PM, 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?
> >
>