harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pavel Ozhdikhin" <pavel.ozhdik...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [performance] a few early benchmarks
Date Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:37:45 GMT
On 11/24/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/11/24, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> > 2006/11/24, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>:
> > > 2006/11/24, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > 23 Nov 2006 19:44:23 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > > > > > 2006/11/23, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > 23 Nov 2006 16:34:22 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony Alexey Petrenko
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 2006/11/23, Vladimir Strigun <vstrigun@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > On 23 Nov 2006 14:37:09 +0600, Egor Pasko
<
> egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony
Vladimir Strigun
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > The numbers that I published was
received on P4
> under Windows +
> > > > > > > > > > > > server.emconf +Harmony-1980. Unfortunately
I haven't
> run Dacapo under
> > > > > > > > > > > > x86_64, but I hope we could receive
almost the same
> range (10-20 %
> > > > > > > > > > > > slower that Sun) with the mentioned
configuration.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And Sun was running with "-server"
too I guess? :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, it is time to track performance
comparisons of
> *different
> > > > > > > > > > > platforms* in one place? That should
help to avoid
> major differences in
> > > > > > > > > > > our visions for harmony performance.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, good idea. Should we define the configuration
for
> all VM's as well?
> > > > > > > > > > For instance, for Sun we could use parameters
from spec
> site. What do
> > > > > > > > > > you think about it?
> > > > > > > > > +1 for options from spec site.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am in love with it too. We could present results
similar
> to how
> > > > > > > > spec.org does. Just a list of runs.
> > > > > > > > For each:
> > > > > > > > * revision number
> > > > > > > > * hardware/os summary (number of cores)
> > > > > > > > * link to full details
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * more?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > score? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > oops :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Scores are most visible things but we can not easily publish
> them for
> > > > > > all specs...
> > > > > not allowed -> won't publish. We have great free benchmarks
> (thanks to
> > > > > DaCapo guys!), they will give us a good picture.
> > > > But I think that we should keep these (spec) benchmarks in mind and
> > > > optimize Harmony for them.
> > > For the *default* mode?
> > No. For server mode.
> Agree then, of course. I wonder most benchmarks will hardly conflict
> (significantly at least) on JIT optimization paths, so the more of
> them the better... Though GC requirements most probably is different
> story.
> BTW, pardon my silly question, what is the core difference between
> server and server_static configs?


In server_static mode optimizations are based solely on heuristics while in
server mode the dynamic optimization framework is employed.
In server_static mode methods are compiled only once by the optimizing
Jitrino.OPT compiler.
In server mode there is recompilation scheme: first time a method compiled
using fast optimizations and instrumenting the code to gather edge profile
information at runtime. When the profile is ready the method is
recompiled with agressive optimizations using the edge profile information.

Thanks,
Pavel


>
> > SY, Alexey
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message