Re: [STUMP] profiling StumpWM

Evan <[email protected]> writes:

>> CL-USER> *features*
>> (:CLOSER-MOP :SBCL-DEBUG-PRINT-VARIABLE-ALIST :MARSHAL
>>  :SBCL+SAFE-STANDARD-READTABLE :NAMED-READTABLES :SWANK :21BIT-CHARS
>>  :FLEXI-STREAMS :RUNE-IS-CHARACTER :SPLIT-SEQUENCE CFFI-FEATURES:FLAT-NAMESPACE
>>  CFFI-FEATURES:X86-64 CFFI-FEATURES:UNIX :CFFI CFFI-SYS::FLAT-NAMESPACE :CL-FAD
>>  :BORDEAUX-THREADS :CL-PPCRE :THREAD-SUPPORT :CLX-EXT-RENDER :CLX-MIT-R5
>>  :CLX-MIT-R4 :XLIB :CLX :CLX-LITTLE-ENDIAN :CLX-ANSI-COMMON-LISP :QUICKLISP
>>  :SB-BSD-SOCKETS-ADDRINFO :ASDF3 :ASDF2 :ASDF :OS-UNIX :NON-BASE-CHARS-EXIST-P
>>  :ASDF-UNICODE :ALIEN-CALLBACKS :ANSI-CL :ASH-RIGHT-VOPS
>>  :C-STACK-IS-CONTROL-STACK :COMMON-LISP :COMPARE-AND-SWAP-VOPS
>>  :COMPLEX-FLOAT-VOPS :CYCLE-COUNTER :ELF :FLOAT-EQL-VOPS :GENCGC
>>  :IEEE-FLOATING-POINT :INLINE-CONSTANTS :LARGEFILE :LINKAGE-TABLE :LINUX
>>  :LITTLE-ENDIAN :MEMORY-BARRIER-VOPS :MULTIPLY-HIGH-VOPS :OS-PROVIDES-BLKSIZE-T
>>  :OS-PROVIDES-DLADDR :OS-PROVIDES-DLOPEN :OS-PROVIDES-GETPROTOBY-R
>>  :OS-PROVIDES-POLL :OS-PROVIDES-PUTWC :OS-PROVIDES-SUSECONDS-T
>>  :PACKAGE-LOCAL-NICKNAMES :RAW-INSTANCE-INIT-VOPS :SB-AFTER-XC-CORE
>>  :SB-CORE-COMPRESSION :SB-DOC :SB-EVAL :SB-FUTEX :SB-LDB :SB-PACKAGE-LOCKS
>>  :SB-SIMD-PACK :SB-SOURCE-LOCATIONS :SB-TEST :SB-THREAD :SB-UNICODE
>>  :SB-XREF-FOR-INTERNALS :SBCL :STACK-ALLOCATABLE-CLOSURES
>>  :STACK-ALLOCATABLE-FIXED-OBJECTS :STACK-ALLOCATABLE-LISTS
>>  :STACK-ALLOCATABLE-VECTORS :STACK-GROWS-DOWNWARD-NOT-UPWARD :SYMBOL-INFO-VOPS
>>  :UNIX :UNWIND-TO-FRAME-AND-CALL-VOP :X86-64)
>> CL-USER> 
>
> OS: Arch Linux x86_64
> Kernel Release: 3.13.6-1-ARCH
> Processor Type: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3610QM CPU @ 2.30GHz
>
> I think that's about it, really. I build sbcl with --fancy. I run the
> following command `src/runtime/sbcl --core output/sbcl.core --script
> ${srcdir}/arch-fixes.lisp` to make my sbcl.core file, and
> arch-fixes.lisp is here: http://paste.lisp.org/+31EL
> Stumpwm is built without any fancy config flags.

Hi Evan,

Thanks for this! I also run arch, and as far as I can tell the above is
just the same as the official PKGBUILD, is that right? With the
exception of the --fancy flag? Maybe I'll give re-building my sbcl a
shot, with the addition of that flag...

> Hope that helps.
>
> Evan
>
> On 03/25/2014 09:52 PM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> Evan <[email protected]> writes:
>> 
>>> I run SBCL and don't notice this problem in general. If you'd like some
>>> system stats as a sanity test, or as a way to perhaps rule out some
>>> things, let me know.
>> 
>> Please do!
>> 
>> As I said in the first message, I don't know enough to figure this out
>> single-handed, but I'm interested in learning. I'd be happy to undertake
>> exploration, do grunt work, and maintain momentum, but I'd need a bit of
>> direction from people who know where to look.
>> 
>> Would the profiling results I linked to in my first message contain any
>> useful clues?
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>>> Evan
>>> On 03/25/2014 11:08 AM, Shawn Betts wrote:
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> I've found the same thing with SBCL, which is why I switched to clisp.
>>>> If you can discover the issue, that would be amazing. This was all
>>>> years ago when 256M of ram was "enough". I sort of had a hunch that it
>>>> was paging related.
>>>>
>>>> -Shawn
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Eric Abrahamsen
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I'm constantly getting laggy prefix-key detection (I thought it had
>>>>> gotten better, but it hadn't). I hit "C-t", and then the next keypress
>>>>> or two goes to the active window, not StumpWM. My girlfriend has already
>>>>> learned that when I send her "go" in Pidgin, I'm not actually telling
>>>>> her to go anywhere, I was just trying to switch to the other group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty of other commands, particularly frame- and group-related
>>>>> commands, take a very user-visible chunk of time to execute. Resuming
>>>>> from hibernation, it can take seven or eight seconds before StumpWM
>>>>> starts seeing the prefix key.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite sure that the problems aren't Stump-only problems, but
>>>>> something going on with the stump/SBCL on my machine (arch linux, as I
>>>>> mentioned), but I hope that profiling would help uncover those issues as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> E
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/25/14 16:39 PM, Ivan Kanis wrote:
>>>>>> March, 25 at 11:50 Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still can't get rid of the idea that Stump is slow, both in reaction
>>>>>>> to input and in its own operations. I know very little about profiling,
>>>>>>> but I thought I'd take a whack at it and see if I could learn anything.
>>>>>>> So far I haven't learned very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What kind of slowness? I use it at work and it's snappy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You must no lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few
>>>>>> drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
>>>>>>     -- Gandhi
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>>>>