harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivan Volosyuk" <ivan.volos...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][gc] TLS access from GC: a proposal to refactor the code
Date Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:08:38 GMT
Sure, the limitation exists. We can broke it even with older
interfaces, but now we have quite pessimistic approach and don't use
even a quarter of it. I do not suggest to keep everything there, just
the most performance critical fields. With that interface we have much
flexibility there and can do fine tuning for better performance.
--
Ivan

On 10/25/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Just one little note from me... AFAIK Window and Linux have limitation
> on the number of TLS slots which can be allocated for any particular
> thread. I believe here is strong (probably performance) reasons for
> doing so. It can be a problem to implement arbitrary size TLS which
> seems to be required in case we want to allocate memory for keeping
> whole structures in it.
>
> Thanks
> Evgueni
>
> On 10/25/06, Ivan Volosyuk <ivan.volosyuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, AFAIU this part of Mikhail's proposal is not mandatory for all
> > GCs. You can use original interface functions for GCv5: malloc GC TLS
> > structure and install only one pointer into TLS.
> >
> > The only thing we need to change is to make GC to access and allocate
> > its data by itself (for greater modularity).
> > --
> > Ivan
> >
> > On 10/25/06, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, this can be an optimization.
> > >
> > > I am not very sure if we can get obvious performance improvement with
> > > this. I am usually conservative with interface change. :-)  Since
> > > neither Windows nor Linux provides this kind of native support, I am
> > > guessing they have their rationality.
> > >
> > > We probably want to delay this optimization in TM until we have
> > > evidance for it, since what Mikhail wants is just to inline GC tls
> > > data access easily.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > xiaofeng
> > >
> > > On 10/25/06, Ivan Volosyuk <ivan.volosyuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Xiao-Feng, I think there should be no problem to get this to work.
> > > > But, I also agree with Mikhail that it could be benefitial to have
> > > > data directly available in TLS without additional pointer dereference.
> > > > If we will have corresponding interface function to allocate more then
> > > > one void pointer at once in TLS it can be used as optimization.
> > > > --
> > > > Ivan

Mime
View raw message