harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robin Garner" <robin.gar...@anu.edu.au>
Subject Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)
Date Sun, 15 May 2005 13:53:38 GMT
> Hi,
>
>> I'd be interested in hearing more from Steve on how well that works
within JikesRVM. From reading some papers on the web, it seems that the
MMTk has been ported to other, non-Java runtimes as well, and I guess
that this binding-vm-components-via-java-interfaces problem has been
efficiently solved by other bright people already outside the
pure-java-runtime space.
>
> Actually Robin Garner is the expert, as he wrote his honors thesis on
the subject.  http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00002397/  (MMTk was
previously known as JMTk---we dropped the 'J' to reflect our goals of
language neutrality).

There's also a precis paper available from here:

http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~wossa2004/HTML/07-garner-1.pdf

As Steve says, the key to getting good performance in a mixed-language
environment is to minimise the frequency of crossing the language
boundary.  Also, unless you use conservative GC (with the attendant
performance issues) you need to minimise sharing of complex data
structures in order to allow copying collection.

The reason I keep emphasising copying collection is newly emerging results
like this:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Steve.Blackburn/pubs/papers/oor-oopsla-2004.pdf

which essentially shows that copying collection can be used to improve
locality and increase performance.  If harmony is to be the best available
optimizing JVM, then techniques like these will be necessary.

cheers
Robin




Mime
View raw message