On 03.05.2011 19:51, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Philippe Marschall <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 29.04.2011 19:03, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Philippe Marschall > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > On 27.04.2011 19 <tel:27.04.2011%2019> > <tel:27.04.2011%2019>:23, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > Philippe, > > > > > > can you please profile before and after? This could > very well > > be to > > > do with the additional cost of shallowCopy for contexts, but > it is > > > inevitable that a correct implementation is going to be more > expensive > > > than the simple block-copy. The new implementation can be > optimized, > > > but we need to profile first to be sure we're tilting at the > relevant > > > windmill. > > > > > > What kind of profiling do you have in mind, MessageTally? > > > > > > Yes, that would be fine. Thanks! > > OK, there you go. As you'll see the runtime is about the same, that's > because we do more iterations in the same time. Also note the time we're > spending in WriteStream >> #nextPutAll: with interestingly has a > different growing behavior than WriteStream >> #nextPut: (only 25% vs > 100%). I already raised the issue once but people argued that the > current code is prefect. > > > Hmmm. GC behaviour is very different. Also requestContext Also shows > up in the 2382 profiles but not the 2370 traces. You'll need to dig a > little deeper to account for these differences. I guess they could well > be to do with the new (correct) MethodContext copying behaviour > retaining more state and hence stressing the GC more.
What approach do you suggest should I take? Cheers Philippe
