harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Egor Pasko <egor.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [performance] a few early benchmarks
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:18:58 GMT
Stefano,

thank you for pointing peroformance issues out!

Although that was a debug build, it uncovers that Harmony is not
properly tuned for FP-intensive workloads as SciMark. One of the
possible reasons of this (known:) limitation is also raised in the
thread "[drlvm][jit][ia-32]register-based fast calling convention",
where Alex vounteers to help with more intelligent XMM register
usage. I consider this a quite-high priority, fully support Alex, hope
for the best, ready to help, etc etc.

On the 0x224 day of Apache Harmony Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> There are lies, damn lies and benchmarks.... which don't really tell you
> if an implementation of a program is *faster* but at least it tells you
> where you're at.
> 
> So, as Geir managed to get the DSO linking problem go away in DRLVM, I
> was able to start running some benchmarks.
> 
> The machine is the following:
> 
> Linux harmony-em64t 2.6.15-27-amd64-generic #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Sep 16
> 01:50:50 UTC 2006 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> 
> dual Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20GHz
> bogomips 6410.31 (per CPU)
> 
> There is nothing else running on the machine (load is 0.04 at the time
> of testing).
> 
> The various virtual machines tested are:
> 
> harmony
> -------
> Apache Harmony Launcher : (c) Copyright 1991, 2006 The Apache Software
> Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.
> java version "1.5.0"
> pre-alpha : not complete or compatible
> svn = r476006, (Nov 16 2006), Linux/em64t/gcc 4.0.3, debug build
> 
> sun5
> ---
> java version "1.5.0_09"
> Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_09-b03)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.5.0_09-b03, mixed mode)
> 
> sun6
> ----
> java version "1.6.0-rc"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0-rc-b104)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.6.0-rc-b104, mixed mode)
> 
> ibm
> ---
> java version "1.5.0"
> Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build
> pxa64dev-20061002a (SR3) )
> IBM J9 VM (build 2.3, J2RE 1.5.0 IBM J9 2.3 Linux amd64-64
> j9vmxa6423-20061001 (JIT enabled)
> J9VM - 20060915_08260_LHdSMr
> JIT  - 20060908_1811_r8
> GC   - 20060906_AA)
> JCL  - 20061002
> 
> bea
> ---
> java version "1.5.0_06"
> Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_06-b05)
> BEA JRockit(R) (build
> R26.4.0-63-63688-1.5.0_06-20060626-2259-linux-x86_64, )
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Test #1: java scimark2 (http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/)
> 
> command: java jnt.scimark2.commandline
> 
> NOTE: bigger number is better
> 
> Sun6
> Composite Score: 364.5832265230057
> FFT (1024): 220.8458713892794
> SOR (100x100):   696.1542342357722
> Monte Carlo : 149.37978088875656
> Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 326.37451873283845
> LU (100x100): 430.1617273683819
> 
> BEA
> Composite Score: 359.13480378697835
> FFT (1024): 303.8746880751562
> SOR (100x100):   454.25628897202307
> Monte Carlo : 93.23913192138497
> Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 530.44112637391
> LU (100x100): 413.8627835924175
> 
> Sun5
> Composite Score: 332.84987587548574
> FFT (1024): 216.5144595799027
> SOR (100x100):   689.429322146947
> Monte Carlo : 25.791262124978065
> Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 317.5193965699373
> LU (100x100): 414.99493895566377
> 
> IBM
> Composite Score: 259.8249218693683
> FFT (1024): 296.8415012789055
> SOR (100x100):   428.974881649179
> Monte Carlo : 89.15159857584082
> Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 144.3524241203982
> LU (100x100): 339.8042037225181
> 
> Harmony
> Composite Score: 113.65082278962575
> FFT (1024): 203.76641991778123
> SOR (100x100):   224.37761309236748
> Monte Carlo : 9.063866256533116
> Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 65.4051866327227
> LU (100x100): 65.6410280487242
> 
> In this test harmony is clearly lagging behind... at about 30%
> performance of the best JVM, it's a little crappy. Please note how FFT's
> performance is not so bad awhile monte carlo is pretty bad compared to
> BEA or IBM.
> 
> Overall, it seems like there is some serious work to do here to catch up.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Test 2: Dhrystones (http://www.c-creators.co.jp/okayan/DhrystoneApplet/)
> 
> command: java dhry 100000000
> 
> NOTE: bigger is better
> 
> NB: I modified the code to accept the count at input from the command line!
> 
> sun6:     8552856 dhrystones/sec
> sun5:     6605892
> bea:      5678914
> harmony:   669734
> ibm:       501562
> 
> The performance here is horrific but what's surprising is that J9 is
> even worse. No idea what's going on but it seems like something is not
> working as it should (in both harmony and J9)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Test 3: Sieve (part of http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/tya18.tgz)
> 
> command: java Sieve 30
> 
> NB: I modified the test to run for a configurable amount of seconds.
> 
> sun6     8545 sieves/sec
> sun5     8364
> bea      6174
> harmony  1836
> ibm       225
> 
> IBM J9 clearly has something wrong on x86_64 but harmony is clearly
> lagging behind.
> 
> Stay tuned for more tests.
> 
> -- 
> Stefano.
> 
> 

-- 
Egor Pasko


Mime
View raw message