[self-interest] UI Performance Question

[Ben Moseley]

Wow - nice work - that seems to make a big difference.

Is there any catch to this? Was it simply a mistake to set it to 100?

--Ben

On 17 Jun 2004, at 18:31, Michael Latta wrote:

> I got the first round of timings done.  It is spending about 5% of the
> elapsed time in the doStep method!!  The rest of the time appears to be
> elsewhere.  Is it possible that the other processes are consuming that
> much CPU for the timeout and watcher processes?  Or on semaphores?  Or
> the scheduler?  Since this basically matches the CPU used by the OS
> process it would suggest that synchronization is using the other 95%.
> I will look at the delay in runloop to see if it is delaying when it
> should not do so.
>
> I did a little more nosing around.  The problem is in
> delayIfNoInputFor: method on traits worldMorph.  The code has been set
> to delay in increments of 100ms!!!! So any delay results in 100ms of
> delay at least.  By changing this to 5 (as the comments imply it should
> be) the frame rate goes to 25 which is what you would expect with 35ms
> frame times as requested at 5ms resolution on the delay.  The method
> should really compute the delay when it is less than the resolution.
> When I get the time I will post a modified version.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2004, at 9:10 AM, Michael Latta wrote:
>
>> While latency may be an issue I do not think that would be the issue
>> here:
>>
>> 1) The CPU usage is only about 2-5%.
>> 2) My G4 does not have DDR memory.
>> 3) My G5 has 4x the RAM of the G4 (4GB rather than 1GB).  So far more
>> can be cached in ram.
>>
>> Does this mean that Self has trouble making good use of L2 cache like
>> most heap based memory models?
>>
>> I got part way through instrumenting the time spent per frame and 1/3
>> was in drawing and 2/3 in the activity related methods before that (in
>> doStep).  I hope to get more detailed measurements later today when I
>> try again.  I crashed the UI last time and need to start from scratch.
>>
>> Do you know the latency issue is resolved in the Rev B units, or you
>> are just saying that it is a known issue in Rev A?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2004, at 10:57 PM, Steve Dekorte wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 15, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Michael Latta wrote:
>>>> If I use 120 it starts to slow down, but anything less gets the same
>>>> 8-10 fps.  The times are very consistent between two very different
>>>> machines: 1Ghz G4 and 2.0 Ghz G5.
>>>
>>> Apple's first generation G5 has much higher latency memory than the
>>> G4,
>>> so I wouldn't expect Self to be much faster. When the G5 came out, I
>>> ran compile tests on a dual 2 Ghz G5 and they were no faster than on
>>> my
>>> dual 1.25 Ghz G4.
>>>
>>> -- Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>