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 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:14:49 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message