No luck (empty profile). I also tried with errortrace and with providing/requiring main instead of dynamic-require and calling main in the profiling, but same effect. I had actually already tried also before posting, and this is why I used these explicit `time` and `current-milliseconds` calls.
I think the program itself is fast enough, but that it may make numerous X calls, that make Xorg use 100% cpu during those seconds. No idea what these calls might be though. I also tried on a different computer (older, but recent Mint), and it works fine. Looks very local to my computer then. Laurent On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu>wrote: > I'm not sure if this will work, but here's an attempt to profile a > 2htdp/universe program. If you put your program in one file called, > say, tmp.rkt and then run the program below (closing the big-bang > window after a while), you should get a profile of something. Maybe it > will be useful. > > #lang racket > > (require profile) > (profile > (dynamic-require "tmp.rkt" #f) > #:threads #t) > > Robby > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you all for your answers. The problem seems to be on my end then. > > However, some other graphic programs that draw in a canvas are not slow > on > > my computer. > > > > Does `big-bang` do something in particular regarding graphics? > > > > Laurent > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:29 PM, David Vanderson > > <david.vander...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> It's fast for me - Linux Mint, both Racket 6.0 and 6.0.1.5 (from git > just > >> now) with cairo 2.11200.2. > >> > >> Dave > >> > >> > >> On 04/21/2014 11:10 AM, Laurent wrote: > >> > >> My version of Cairo is 2.11000.2. What's yours, Sean? > >> (probably: ls /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libcairo.so*) > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Robby Findler > >> <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> If the versions of Cairo are the same, then that eliminates one > >>> possible route of inquiry. > >>> > >>> Robby > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > Thanks Sean. > >>> > (I forgot to mention that I was testing on Racket 6.0.1.4). > >>> > Apparently it does not lag on your machine, so it might be particular > >>> > to my > >>> > machine then? Strange. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Sean Kanaley <skana...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Here's my log after pasting the source into command-line racket 6.0, > >>> >> Ubuntu 12.04 32-bit: > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw at 1649 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key a at 2934 > >>> >> to-draw at 2934 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key s at 2970 > >>> >> to-draw at 2970 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key d at 3044 > >>> >> on-key f at 3044 > >>> >> to-draw at 3045 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3069 > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key a at 3198 > >>> >> on-key s at 3198 > >>> >> to-draw at 3199 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3329 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3392 > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key g at 3430 > >>> >> on-key j at 3430 > >>> >> on-key k at 3430 > >>> >> to-draw at 3430 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3467 > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key a at 3504 > >>> >> on-key l at 3504 > >>> >> to-draw at 3505 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3547 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3572 > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key h at 3602 > >>> >> to-draw at 3602 > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> on-key k at 3659 > >>> >> on-key ; at 3659 > >>> >> to-draw at 3659 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3689 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3725 > >>> >> > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> to-draw at 3776 > >>> >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com > > > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I have a 2htdp/universe program that used to run fast enough a few > >>> >>> months > >>> >>> ago, but now it is very slow and not usable. > >>> >>> The slowness seems to be because of the on-screen rendering, and > not > >>> >>> because of the generation of the image. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Here is a stripped-down version that shows this behavior: > >>> >>> https://gist.github.com/Metaxal/11142941 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> In the following log, you see that the `on-key` events are very > close > >>> >>> one > >>> >>> to the other (in milliseconds after the beginning of the program), > >>> >>> but the > >>> >>> corresponding `to-draw` events are separated by more than a second, > >>> >>> even > >>> >>> though generating the image (cpu time) takes almost no time: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> on-key a at 6906 > >>> >>> on-key u at 6912 > >>> >>> on-key i at 6912 > >>> >>> on-key e at 6913 > >>> >>> to-draw at 6913 > >>> >>> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > >>> >>> to-draw at 8598 > >>> >>> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > >>> >>> to-draw at 11948 > >>> >>> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > >>> >>> to-draw at 13631 > >>> >>> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > >>> >>> to-draw at 161839 > >>> >>> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 9 gc time: 0 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> During those long seconds, Xorg is almost at 100% cpu. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> However, using an empty scene instead of an image is fast. > >>> >>> The time also depends on the size of the grid. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I'm using Ubuntu 12.04 64bits. > >>> >>> I have tried to replicate the behavior on older versions of racket > >>> >>> (5.3.1 > >>> >>> and 5.90.0.9) but it's the same. So maybe the problem is not on > >>> >>> Racket's > >>> >>> side but something has changed in Ubuntu? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Does anyone else see the same behavior, either on the same platform > >>> >>> or on > >>> >>> a different one? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Thanks, > >>> >>> Laurent > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> ____________________ > >>> >>> Racket Users list: > >>> >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ____________________ > >>> > Racket Users list: > >>> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >>> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________ > >> Racket Users list: > >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
