Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 98795 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2006 17:53:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Dec 2006 17:53:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 77632 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2006 17:53:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 77604 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2006 17:53:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 77595 invoked by uid 99); 5 Dec 2006 17:53:08 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:53:08 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of weldonwjw@gmail.com designates 64.233.184.224 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.184.224] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.184.224) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:52:57 -0800 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 55so1565711wri for ; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:52:36 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=A0xxaiBBMhYWZSs2/eFKETkePL1LUJNRgrNXCV99UowlxK0GckKB6HNv+xhyqDtIOhAm20U00is7mERlYbqm0oIATf6UeaMob94QiaVTPu7TdqwyFwe7LvEjpKD8mPP3gAk0SpNjbzq17WLP+DorYNAf59vfcQSnL/3kHlKlMIg= Received: by 10.78.201.10 with SMTP id y10mr9237217huf.1165341154955; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.136.5 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:52:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4dd1f3f00612050952p4cf3dea5mb707f47a5eae9681@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:52:34 -0800 From: "Weldon Washburn" To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: [DRLVM][GC] (HARMONY-2398) patch for GCv5 alloc helper inlining In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_15937_33254699.1165341154302" References: <9623c9a50612030046l161a8c3fk6f50be5b34562dc0@mail.gmail.com> <9623c9a50612041607o54948d82v66d4868f976e91ee@mail.gmail.com> <9623c9a50612050228i2cbddc72xcd6f966edbe662f3@mail.gmail.com> <12385bbd0612050414q7b54317eib639caf622f59b61@mail.gmail.com> <12385bbd0612050432t7682fb2ak17d50ba3f9a0c1b4@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_15937_33254699.1165341154302 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 12/5/06, Mikhail Fursov 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. Yes. Exactly. It is easy to get stuck in the trap of premature optimization. There will be plenty of opportunity to try different vm helper configurations once we get real enterprise workloads up and running. On 12/5/06, Ivan Volosyuk wrote: > > > > Helper code is equal. GC code is not. Lets compare apples with oranges. > > -- > > Ivan > > > > On 12/5/06, Mikhail Fursov 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 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. > > > > > > -- > Mikhail Fursov > > -- Weldon Washburn Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division ------=_Part_15937_33254699.1165341154302--