XO-1(.75)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

XO-1(.75)

Yioryos Asprobounitis
I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a sense of XO-1 performance wise.
So I compared my (500/200 overclocked) XO-1 running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.
XO-1.75 was significantly faster to boot (~20sec).
However, XO-1 was faster (to open)  clock, fototoon, ruler, distance, terminal, pippy, implode, log, paint, measure and write activities !!!
XO-1.75 was faster in the tam-tam suit, scratch and etoys, speak, calculate, turtle art, maze, moon, record and browse activities. Memorize was a toss.  
In all cases the difference  was 1-2 seconds either way.
I was wondering if some pattern could be recognized and hopefully improved or is just the different (presumably more resource demanding) acivity versions.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

James Cameron-2
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a sense of
> XO-1 performance wise.  So I compared my (500/200 overclocked) XO-1
> running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running
> F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.

Since some general performance work was done between those software
versions, the comparison is uninteresting.  Compare 13.2.0-11 across
XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11,
depending on what you are looking to prove.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Martin Langhoff
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:10 PM, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> versions, the comparison is uninteresting.

+1 -- we got some performance gains in drivers... and we lost some
performance in the GTK3 PyGI battle.

So it is paramount to compare matched sw versions.




m
--
 [hidden email]
 -  ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Kevin Gordon Gmail
All good for performance testing from a developer point of view. However, from a user experience point of view, taking an XO 1.0 running an old version and replacing it with an XO1.75 running a new version and seeing performance decrease I can be 'interesting'. In fact, I would argue that it is a necessary piece of knowledge to properly manage user expectations.  

Cheers,

KG

Sent from my currently functioning gadget
From: Martin Langhoff
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 19:15
To: James Cameron; Yioryos Asprobounitis; OLPC Devel
Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:10 PM, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> versions, the comparison is uninteresting.

+1 -- we got some performance gains in drivers... and we lost some
performance in the GTK3 PyGI battle.

So it is paramount to compare matched sw versions.




m
--
[hidden email]
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

James Cameron-2
I don't think many users would get that luxury, and of those that do I
don't think managing user expectations will be done.

p.s. no such thing as XO-1.0  ;-)

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 07:23:52PM -0400, Kevin Gordon Gmail wrote:

> All good for performance testing from a developer point of view. However, from
> a user experience point of view, taking an XO 1.0 running an old version and
> replacing it with an XO1.75 running a new version and seeing performance
> decrease I can be 'interesting'. In fact, I would argue that it is a necessary
> piece of knowledge to properly manage user expectations.  
>
> Cheers,
>
> KG
>
> Sent from my currently functioning gadget
>
> From: Martin Langhoff
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 19:15
> To: James Cameron; Yioryos Asprobounitis; OLPC Devel
> Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:10 PM, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > versions, the comparison is uninteresting.
>
> +1 -- we got some performance gains in drivers... and we lost some
> performance in the GTK3 PyGI battle.
>
> So it is paramount to compare matched sw versions.
>
>
>
>
> m
> --
> [hidden email]
> - ask interesting questions
> - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
> ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Yioryos Asprobounitis
In reply to this post by James Cameron-2
----- Original Message -----

> From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
> To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
> Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>>  I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a sense of
>>  XO-1 performance wise.  So I compared my (500/200 overclocked) XO-1
>>  running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running
>>  F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.
>
> Since some general performance work was done between those software
> versions, the comparison is uninteresting.  Compare 13.2.0-11 across
> XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11,
> depending on what you are looking to prove.

This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably.
What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the inconsistency. They might point to specific stacks in the architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I know ;).
Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison.

>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

James Cameron-2
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:15PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
> > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>  I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a sense of
> >>  XO-1 performance wise.  So I compared my (500/200 overclocked) XO-1
> >>  running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running
> >>  F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.
> >
> > Since some general performance work was done between those software
> > versions, the comparison is uninteresting.  Compare 13.2.0-11 across
> > XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11,
> > depending on what you are looking to prove.
>
> This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear
> that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably.

Yes, it does seem that way.  I tried 13.2.0-n on XO-1 recently and
felt it was quite slow, but I couldn't be sure it wasn't because my
XO-1.75 and XO-4 experience influenced me.

> What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the
> inconsistency.

I don't see any inconsistency though, because the comparison was
unmatched to begin with.  Variables you changed included overclocking,
the CPU, the memory, the internal storage, the touchpad, the kernel,
the base operating system, the frame buffer, the X server, the OLPC
utilities, and Sugar.  All I can draw from the results is that you
changed a lot of things and a lot of things were different.

> They might point to specific stacks in the
> architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally
> thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or
> proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I
> know ;).
> Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or
> anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison.

We wait for someone who seems interested in fixing performance
problems on the old hardware.  It requires quite a depth of knowledge
and a lot of time.  It isn't something that we can justify a huge
investment in.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Yioryos Asprobounitis
----- Original Message -----

> From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
> To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
> Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:44 AM
> Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:15PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>  > From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
>>  > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
>>  > Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
>>  > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:10 AM
>>  > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
>>  >
>>  > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>>  >>  I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a
> sense of
>>  >>  XO-1 performance wise.  So I compared my (500/200 overclocked)
> XO-1
>>  >>  running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running
>>  >>  F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.
>>  >
>>  > Since some general performance work was done between those software
>>  > versions, the comparison is uninteresting.  Compare 13.2.0-11 across
>>  > XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11,
>>  > depending on what you are looking to prove.
>>
>>  This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear
>>  that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably.
>
> Yes, it does seem that way.  I tried 13.2.0-n on XO-1 recently and
> felt it was quite slow, but I couldn't be sure it wasn't because my
> XO-1.75 and XO-4 experience influenced me.
>
>>  What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the
>>  inconsistency.
>
> I don't see any inconsistency though, because the comparison was
> unmatched to begin with.  Variables you changed included overclocking,
> the CPU, the memory, the internal storage, the touchpad, the kernel,
> the base operating system, the frame buffer, the X server, the OLPC
> utilities, and Sugar.  All I can draw from the results is that you
> changed a lot of things and a lot of things were different.

But this is exactly the point!
When a _lot_ of things are changing and you have two groups of activities one going one way and the other  the opposite, you look for the "least common denominator" that will hopefully point to the problem (this is is a very common approach in multi-variable problems).

>
>>  They might point to specific stacks in the
>>  architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally
>>  thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or
>>  proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I
>>  know ;).
>>  Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or
>>  anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison.
>
> We wait for someone who seems interested in fixing performance
> problems on the old hardware.  It requires quite a depth of knowledge
> and a lot of time.  It isn't something that we can justify a huge
> investment in.

I would think that the performance of newer hardware may be the one that needs attention but certainly can not prioritize it (unless if XO-1.75 classifies under "older" by now). 
Best
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

James Cameron-2
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:03:17PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
> > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:15PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >>  > From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
> >>  > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
> >>  > Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
> >>  > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:10 AM
> >>  > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
> >>  >
> >>  > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>  >>  I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a
> > sense of
> >>  >>  XO-1 performance wise.  So I compared my (500/200 overclocked)
> > XO-1
> >>  >>  running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running
> >>  >>  F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.
> >>  >
> >>  > Since some general performance work was done between those software
> >>  > versions, the comparison is uninteresting.  Compare 13.2.0-11 across
> >>  > XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11,
> >>  > depending on what you are looking to prove.
> >>
> >>  This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear
> >>  that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably.
> >
> > Yes, it does seem that way.  I tried 13.2.0-n on XO-1 recently and
> > felt it was quite slow, but I couldn't be sure it wasn't because my
> > XO-1.75 and XO-4 experience influenced me.
> >
> >>  What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the
> >>  inconsistency.
> >
> > I don't see any inconsistency though, because the comparison was
> > unmatched to begin with.  Variables you changed included overclocking,
> > the CPU, the memory, the internal storage, the touchpad, the kernel,
> > the base operating system, the frame buffer, the X server, the OLPC
> > utilities, and Sugar.  All I can draw from the results is that you
> > changed a lot of things and a lot of things were different.
>
> But this is exactly the point!
> When a _lot_ of things are changing and you have two groups of
> activities one going one way and the other  the opposite, you look
> for the "least common denominator" that will hopefully point to the
> problem (this is is a very common approach in multi-variable
> problems).

Oh good, now I understand.

>
> >
> >>  They might point to specific stacks in the
> >>  architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally
> >>  thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or
> >>  proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I
> >>  know ;).
> >>  Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or
> >>  anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison.
> >
> > We wait for someone who seems interested in fixing performance
> > problems on the old hardware.  It requires quite a depth of knowledge
> > and a lot of time.  It isn't something that we can justify a huge
> > investment in.
> > 
>
> I would think that the performance of newer hardware may be the one
> that needs attention but certainly can not prioritize it (unless if
> XO-1.75 classifies under "older" by now). 

XO-1.75 and XO-4 are current, but XO-1.5 and XO-1 are old.

We are certainly interested in any ways to make clear performance
improvements on XO-1.75 and XO-4.

We are also interested in the same for XO-1.5 and XO-1, but my guess
is that the number of people who will immediately benefit may be much
lower.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Jon Nettleton



On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:19 AM, James Cameron <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:03:17PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
> > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:15PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >>  > From: James Cameron <[hidden email]>
> >>  > To: Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]>
> >>  > Cc: OLPC Devel <[hidden email]>
> >>  > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:10 AM
> >>  > Subject: Re: XO-1(.75)
> >>  >
> >>  > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:21:08PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> >>  >>  I'm using the XO-1.75 a bit more these days and gives me a
> > sense of
> >>  >>  XO-1 performance wise.  So I compared my (500/200 overclocked)
> > XO-1
> >>  >>  running F14/os885/Sugar-0.94 to XO-1.75 running
> >>  >>  F-18/13.2.0-11/Sugar-0.98.
> >>  >
> >>  > Since some general performance work was done between those software
> >>  > versions, the comparison is uninteresting.  Compare 13.2.0-11 across
> >>  > XO-1 and XO-1.75, or compare XO-1 across os885 and 13.2.0-11,
> >>  > depending on what you are looking to prove.
> >>
> >>  This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear
> >>  that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably.
> >
> > Yes, it does seem that way.  I tried 13.2.0-n on XO-1 recently and
> > felt it was quite slow, but I couldn't be sure it wasn't because my
> > XO-1.75 and XO-4 experience influenced me.
> >
> >>  What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the
> >>  inconsistency.
> >
> > I don't see any inconsistency though, because the comparison was
> > unmatched to begin with.  Variables you changed included overclocking,
> > the CPU, the memory, the internal storage, the touchpad, the kernel,
> > the base operating system, the frame buffer, the X server, the OLPC
> > utilities, and Sugar.  All I can draw from the results is that you
> > changed a lot of things and a lot of things were different.
>
> But this is exactly the point!
> When a _lot_ of things are changing and you have two groups of
> activities one going one way and the other  the opposite, you look
> for the "least common denominator" that will hopefully point to the
> problem (this is is a very common approach in multi-variable
> problems).

Oh good, now I understand.

>
> >
> >>  They might point to specific stacks in the
> >>  architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally
> >>  thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or
> >>  proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I
> >>  know ;).
> >>  Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or
> >>  anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison.
> >
> > We wait for someone who seems interested in fixing performance
> > problems on the old hardware.  It requires quite a depth of knowledge
> > and a lot of time.  It isn't something that we can justify a huge
> > investment in.
> > 
>
> I would think that the performance of newer hardware may be the one
> that needs attention but certainly can not prioritize it (unless if
> XO-1.75 classifies under "older" by now). 

XO-1.75 and XO-4 are current, but XO-1.5 and XO-1 are old.

We are certainly interested in any ways to make clear performance
improvements on XO-1.75 and XO-4.


There is performance work that has been done for the XO-1.75 that is still in the queue to be implemented in the OLPC builds.  It is on my list for the summer to get this work cleaned up and published in a repo for developer and end user consumption.  The performance gains are due to work done by Matt Turner implementing iWMMXt acceleration in pixman, as well as other libraries that when compiled with this support get some performance boosts.  Mostly graphics and multimedia apps will benefit from this tuning.

On top of that both the XO-1.75 and XO-4 will get graphics performance boosts when I finish up my graphics driver that allows cached pixmaps to be used.  We have to do some graphics rendering and manipulations with the CPU instead of the 2D core and we hit a performance bottleneck with the way pixmaps are allocated for use by the graphics engine.

-Jon

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Gonzalo Odiard-3
In reply to this post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
This comparison has been done a couple of months ago and is clear that F18/S0.98 taxes the systems considerably.
What I found interesting in this "unmatched" comparison was the inconsistency. They might point to specific stacks in the architecture and/or core OS that may need attention (I originally thought was that activities with an extended non-python component or proportionally less gtk3, fair better on the XO-1.75 - but what do I know ;).
Anyway, if the knowledgeable believe there is nothing to it or anything to be done about it,' there goes the comparison.

No inconsistency here.
Most of the activities you see slower were ported to Gtk3.
Tam-tam suit, speak, calculate, turtle art, maze, moon, record were not ported
scratch and etoys are not related with Gtk
Browse received a lot of care this months.
Sadly, while the port to Gtk3 and dynamic bindings promised faster start up time (in theory)
that was never true. Dsd found performance problems and pushed changes upstream.
and 13.2.0 is better than 13.1.0, but anyway more work is needed.
Maybe some work can be done in the activities to improve it.
Do you have numbers to share?

Gonzalo  



_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Daniel Drake-5
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Gonzalo Odiard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> No inconsistency here.
> Most of the activities you see slower were ported to Gtk3.
> Tam-tam suit, speak, calculate, turtle art, maze, moon, record were not
> ported
> scratch and etoys are not related with Gtk
> Browse received a lot of care this months.
> Sadly, while the port to Gtk3 and dynamic bindings promised faster start up
> time (in theory)
> that was never true. Dsd found performance problems and pushed changes
> upstream.
> and 13.2.0 is better than 13.1.0, but anyway more work is needed.
> Maybe some work can be done in the activities to improve it.
> Do you have numbers to share?

Yes, this is the interesting point in this thread. If you take an
"old" release, on any platforms where we have "old" releases
available, and do a side-by-side comparison with the latest release,
we may well have a performance regression.

However the possible performance regression is not documented in
technical terms. People have mentioned a slowdown in previous threads,
but nobody posted any numbers. Last time, a video was posted, but that
link is no longer working and I'm not sure if it had numbers in it.

Last time it was discussed I did generate numbers myself and then
solved the problem. However that discussion was focused around Sugar
startup time. This discussion now turns to activity startup time.

So, having someone generate activity startup time numbers in a fair
test (i.e. same platform, different software versions) would be of
value.

If there is a performance regression here, we don't have a technical
diagnosis that I know of. It seems like some people suspect
GTK3/gobject-introspection as the cause, and those may be likely
candidates, but I don't think we have real diagnosis supporting that
(yet), nor any explanation for why those new technologies might be
slower than the old ones.

Daniel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Yioryos Asprobounitis
> So, having someone generate activity startup time numbers in a fair

> test (i.e. same platform, different software versions) would be of
> value.


Tried the following little script but I can not find a way to get the output of 'time' command to the output.txt file.
Any suggestions?

#!/bin/bash
rm -f output.txt
for x in $(cat Activities/*/activity/activity.info | grep bundle | cut -f 2 -d '=')
do
 echo $x >> output.txt
 echo >> output.txt
 time sugar-launch $x & 2>> output.txt # 'time -o' does not work neither with & at the end
 sleep 30
 ME=$(ps aux | grep $x | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}') 
 kill -9 $ME 2>> output.txt
done

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Daniel Drake-5
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Tried the following little script but I can not find a way to get the output of 'time' command to the output.txt file.

Not really sure what you are trying to do here - sugar-launch will not
return until the activity exits.

I ran a couple of experiments here, with XO-1s running 12.1.0 and 13.2.0.
Clock (which is a GTK2 activity on both versions) does start 0.5 - 1
second slower on 13.2.0.
On 12.1.0 it starts in 10.5 seconds. That is approx 5% change.

Running under perf, the most noticable difference is that X uses 5% of
CPU time on 12.1.0, and 10% on 13.2.0. A 5% change.

Unfortunately perf doesn't tell me which part of X is eating CPU,
apart from the fact that it is not in the kernel. Need to figure out
why perf can't be more specific.

The risk to this work is that we might fix the 5% X issue and see no
noticable difference. But I will try to continue a bit of
investigation here next week.

Daniel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Yioryos Asprobounitis
In reply to this post by Daniel Drake-5
> So, having someone generate activity startup time numbers in a fair

> test (i.e. same platform, different software versions) would be of
> value.


OK.
The following script appears to work as expected, but is the result valid?
ie does the call through sugar-lunch as well as grep, awk, kill etc add to the time result?

#!/bin/bash
rm -f output.txt
for x in $(cat Activities/*/activity/activity.info | grep bundle | cut -f 2 -d '=')
do
 echo $x >> output.txt
 { time sugar-launch $x 2>/dev/null & 
 sleep 30
 ME=$(ps aux | grep $x | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}') 
 kill -9 $ME ; } 2>> output.txt
 echo >> output.txt
done
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Daniel Drake-5
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> The following script appears to work as expected, but is the result valid?

That's hard to judge without having an explanation for what you are
trying to measure. I can't immediately see your intentions from
reading the script.

Daniel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Jerry Vonau
In reply to this post by Daniel Drake-5
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 13:57 -0600, Daniel Drake wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Tried the following little script but I can not find a way to get the output of 'time' command to the output.txt file.
>
> Not really sure what you are trying to do here - sugar-launch will not
> return until the activity exits.
>
> I ran a couple of experiments here, with XO-1s running 12.1.0 and 13.2.0.
> Clock (which is a GTK2 activity on both versions) does start 0.5 - 1
> second slower on 13.2.0.
> On 12.1.0 it starts in 10.5 seconds. That is approx 5% change.
>
> Running under perf, the most noticable difference is that X uses 5% of
> CPU time on 12.1.0, and 10% on 13.2.0. A 5% change.
>

Of the total available, would that not be a 100% increase in CPU time
used by the process running X?  

> Unfortunately perf doesn't tell me which part of X is eating CPU,
> apart from the fact that it is not in the kernel. Need to figure out
> why perf can't be more specific.
>
> The risk to this work is that we might fix the 5% X issue and see no
> noticable difference. But I will try to continue a bit of
> investigation here next week.
>

Jerry

> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Gonzalo Odiard-3
In reply to this post by Yioryos Asprobounitis
While more manual, you can get the activity startup time
uncommenting the line

export SUGAR_LOGGER_LEVEL=debug

in the file .sugar/debug

Gonzalo


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So, having someone generate activity startup time numbers in a fair

> test (i.e. same platform, different software versions) would be of
> value.


Tried the following little script but I can not find a way to get the output of 'time' command to the output.txt file.
Any suggestions?

#!/bin/bash
rm -f output.txt
for x in $(cat Activities/*/activity/activity.info | grep bundle | cut -f 2 -d '=')
do
 echo $x >> output.txt
 echo >> output.txt
 time sugar-launch $x & 2>> output.txt # 'time -o' does not work neither with & at the end
 sleep 30
 ME=$(ps aux | grep $x | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}') 
 kill -9 $ME 2>> output.txt
done



_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Yioryos Asprobounitis
In reply to this post by Daniel Drake-5
>>  The following script appears to work as expected, but is the result valid?

>
> That's hard to judge without having an explanation for what you are
> trying to measure. I can't immediately see your intentions from
> reading the script.
>
> Daniel
>

My intention is to get a list of the "user" and "system" time that takes to launch the activities.
The attachments show the results on XO-1 running os885 and 13.2.0-4 (no overclocking or other mods).
It stops at Terminal (ooops) but you get the idea.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

AppRun_xo1_13.2.0-4.txt (6K) Download Attachment
AppRun_xo1_os885.txt (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XO-1(.75)

Gonzalo Odiard-3
I did another comparison, between  13.2.0 os11 and os883 (sugar 0.94)
You can see the results here:

Metodology:

* Changed SUGAR_LOGGER_DEVEL
* The activities were started from the listview, then are new instances
* The start up time is the time reported by sugar in the log.

The column start  up difference, if negative, the time was improved.
I added a column to show what activities were ported from Gtk2 to Gtk3.
In the case of Read activity, the mechanism is confused, because the old activity
opened the ObjectChooser in a new instance. 
I don't know what happen with Scratch.

Some activities had a lot of changes, but other like Distance or Implode not,
and looks like the change to Gtk3 add a penalty. 


Gonzalo 




On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  The following script appears to work as expected, but is the result valid?

>
> That's hard to judge without having an explanation for what you are
> trying to measure. I can't immediately see your intentions from
> reading the script.
>
> Daniel
>

My intention is to get a list of the "user" and "system" time that takes to launch the activities.
The attachments show the results on XO-1 running os885 and 13.2.0-4 (no overclocking or other mods).
It stops at Terminal (ooops) but you get the idea.


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
12