Since the allocation helper is inlined now, I reran the old allocation rate test( with the default heapsize 256 M ) ...while gc_gen and gc_cc are in the same ballpark, there is still some way to go to catch up with RI. Log attached.
On 12/5/06, Mikhail Fursov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
If you compare performance of allocation - allocation fast path helper code
is all you need.
And we need to check performance not with microtests, but use real
benchmarks. Microtests can hide cache misses in our example.
On 12/5/06, Ivan Volosyuk <email@example.com> wrote:
> Helper code is equal. GC code is not. Lets compare apples with oranges.
> On 12/5/06, Mikhail Fursov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > The helpers code is equal, except this load. So if we have different
> > performance -> this extra memory access is the cause.
> > On 12/5/06, Ivan Volosyuk <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think in order to do this comparison, other conditions should be
> > > equal. Comparing helper with 1 dependent load in gc_cc and helper with
> > > 2 dependent loads in gc_v5 makes no sense to me.