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: [drlvm][jvmti] Profiling support - Compiled Method Load event
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:36:22 GMT
On the 0x240 day of Apache Harmony Eugene Ostrovsky wrote:
> I experimented with sun and bea vms.

did you try HotSpot for JSE 6 (with attach anytime feature)?

> None of them report inlined methods.
>
> Thus we need to make a decision by ourselves.

:) yes

> On 14 Dec 2006 16:14:49 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On the 0x23F day of Apache Harmony Eugene Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > I'll try to make test to investigate RI behavior.
> >
> > thank you thank you thank you
> >
> > > On 13 Dec 2006 16:34:46 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the 0x23E day of Apache Harmony George Timoshenko wrote:
> > > > > Egor,
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks for clear scheme.
> > > > >
> > > > > In your terms I'd do something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > * firstly - raise event for X:
> > > > >      CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.1.start,
> > > > >                         method_size=X.1.size + X.2.size,
> > > > >                         addr_loc_map=
> > > > >                         [X.1.start -> bcoff1,
> > > > >                          X.2.start -> bcoff2])
> > > > >    * secondly - raise event for Y:
> > > > >      CompiledMethodLoad(start=Y.1.start,
> > > > >                         method_size=Y.1.size,
> > > > >                         addr_loc_map=
> > > > >                         [Y.1.start -> bcoff_Y])
> > > >
> > > > good question!
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, code_addr and code_size outlines a region where method code is
> > > > contained. In that case VM can quickly tell which method the IP
> > > > (instruction pointer) belongs to. So, I intentionally suggested
> > > > code_size=(X.1.size + Y.1.size + X.2.size) instead of (X.1.size +
> > > > X.2.size).
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Eugene, do you have some important observations of the RI
> > > > behaviour for us?
> > > >
> > > > >  >   For example, we have
> > > > >  >   some chinks of methods X and Y intermixed like this:
> > > > >  >   "X.1,Y.1,X.2". To overcome we may:
> > > > >  >   * raise a single event for X:
> > > > >  >     CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.1.start,
> > > > >  >                        method_size=X.1.size + Y.1.size + X.2.size
> > ,
> > > > >  >                        addr_loc_map=
> > > > >  >                        [X.1.start -> bcoff1,
> > > > >  >                         Y.1.start -> 0,
> > > > >  >                         X.2.start -> bcoff2])
> > > > >  >   * raise 2 events for X:
> > > > >  >     CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.1.start,
> > > > >  >                        method_size=X.1.size,
> > > > >  >                        addr_loc_map=
> > > > >  >                        [X.1.start -> bcoff1])
> > > > >  >     CompiledMethodLoad(start=X.2.start,
> > > > >  >                        method_size=X.2.size,
> > > > >  >                        addr_loc_map=
> > > > >  >                        [X.2.start -> bcoff2])
> > > > >  >
> > > > >  > I would highly appreciate if some JVMTI guru steps down from
> > Olymp
> > > > and
> > > > >  > tells which of two is the best, or at least says what RI does
in
> > that
> > > > >  > case (or, maybe, RI does not generate non-contigous blocks?)
> > > > >  >
> > > > >  > I like the second approach (raise 2 events)
> > > > >  >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Egor Pasko
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Egor Pasko
> >
> >

-- 
Egor Pasko


Mime
View raw message