Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of gcjhd-harmony-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
From: Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [drlvm][jvmti] Profiling support - Compiled Method Load event
Date: 13 Dec 2006 16:34:46 +0600
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <uzm9scce1.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <1e3228450611100406n1d0ea58fp2c778fb9a3c49458@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e3228450611100424w78277d4y4ca4c415e418dc06@mail.gmail.com>
 <ej91ij$cj7$1@sea.gmane.org>
 <1e3228450611210458l11898665w13a09a9573841515@mail.gmail.com>
 <469bff730611212121u5e68af46j8c4a85a7b44d6aba@mail.gmail.com>
 <456411D7.7040703@gmail.com>
 <1e3228450611230601g683392edh892346d0f1fdce8@mail.gmail.com>
 <ek5rmt$dqg$1@sea.gmane.org>
 <1e3228450611240302n23720609m80e3fe70e5448640@mail.gmail.com>
 <ek6l6b$eem$1@sea.gmane.org>
 <1e3228450611290749y4583024ev8cd9a0d9f3104f4a@mail.gmail.com>
 <el1b2n$a87$1@sea.gmane.org> <u4psalu38.fsf@gmail.com>
 <el3ab6$ja7$1@sea.gmane.org> <uvekqk6ua.fsf@gmail.com>
 <el68al$6v1$1@sea.gmane.org> <uwt53iwwa.fsf@gmail.com>
 <elijq3$mes$1@sea.gmane.org> <uirgifqeb.fsf@gmail.com>
 <elogvi$5g5$2@sea.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>

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