I think so, for each method view there is an SHTextStyler / SHTextStylerST80 which computes the colors for styling in a background process. At least that part of your problem is coherent.
Though I still have no idea why the styler would fail and hang the process, so far I never experienced that. I suspect some "strange" mehtod / source code must trigger some bugs in the styler? On 2013-11-11, at 18:15, [email protected] wrote: > I then signalled the semaphores (Alt-S in the process browser and the > processes went away). > > Size of SHRange is now: SHRange allInstances size. 217381 (After a couple > GCs). > > Are these things created when one views methods in the browser ? > > Phil > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:09 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > I had a look at the process browser and found this strange set of processes > with semaphores and style in background. > How comes? > There is no browser open even. > > See screenshot attached. > > Phil > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:10 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > Yeah, that's a tad weird. > > I am quite concerned about that image ballooning effect. > > I've got a dev image and it is now 185.515.948 > > I did the flush thing > > MCFileBasedRepository flushAllCaches. > 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. > > and now, it is 158.740.484 > > SpaceTally new printSpaceAnalysis > > shows: > > Class code space # instances inst > space percent inst average size > Array 3712 817192 > 31395576 19.30 38.42 > Float 13047 1313593 > 15763116 9.70 12.00 > ByteString 2785 378125 > 13078821 8.00 34.59 > MorphExtension 3097 157557 > 10713876 6.60 68.00 > Bitmap 3653 1975 > 10198648 6.30 5163.87 > TextMethodLink 419 392396 > 9417504 5.80 24.00 > Point 7105 711444 > 8537328 5.30 12.00 > CompiledMethod 22467 82802 > 5215856 3.20 62.99 > SHRange 1919 217316 > 4346320 2.70 20.00 > Rectangle 8795 325385 > 3904620 2.40 12.00 > TableLayoutProperties 1169 49629 > 3573288 2.20 72.00 > Semaphore 949 149195 > 2983900 1.80 20.00 > > A ton of MorphExtensions (which is a know problem). > > but also quite some TextMethodLinks, which I do not understand. > SHRange, from styling things I guess, lots of remnants. > > And quite a bunch of Semaphores, too much I think. > > Tons of Arrays and floats. I do a lot of NeoCSV loads in the image. > > > Phil > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11 Nov 2013, at 15:51, [email protected] wrote: > > > Image size goes back to: > > > > 29.068.612 > > > > Looks like all package contents are cached in the image… > > But by a factor 3 ?? > > > Phil > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Phil, what happens if you evaluate (and save after) to the big image: > > > > MCFileBasedRepository flushAllCaches. > > 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > [User.Techlab] → du -hs package-cache > > 5.3M package-cache > > > > Phil > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > What is the total size of the package-cache, like du -hs ? > > Could it be the same size of the difference in image size ? > > That would mean that the contents of the packages themselves is cached in > > the image... > > > > On 11 Nov 2013, at 10:39, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > I am experiencing the following while loading my configuration. > > > > > > REPO=http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/philippeback/HOWebStack/main > > > ./pharo Pharo.image config $REPO ConfigurationOfHOWebStack --install=0.4 > > > > > > Everything loads fine. > > > > > > But: > > > > > > with a package-cache/ empty, the final image is: 44.452.060 with a > > > changes file of: 10.831.877 > > > > > > with a primed package-cache (meaning, letting the mczs in place and > > > starting with a fresh image), the final image is: 29.480.912 with a > > > changes file of: 10.830.899 > > > > > > That's quite a huge difference. > > > > > > I tried again to be sure (fresh image and empty package-cache, then fresh > > > image only) and, weirdly enough, even if the difference in size was the > > > same, the sizes themselves weren't.the same... > > > > > > 44.446.152 - 10.830.899 > > > 29.986.284 - 10.831.543 > > > > > > Maybe that's due to a GC occurring differently between the two. > > > > > > But this gives the impression that one cannot load a base image, apply a > > > configuration, and end up with the same image twice. Weird. > > > > > > Why is this difference so large in the first place ? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
