harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony performance page
Date Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:34:00 GMT

On Feb 1, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Alexey Petrenko wrote:

> Guys,
>
> is that right that we can publish IBM VME and JRockit VM versions for
> Harmony with Harmony class library performance results on our
> performance page?

I thought it was mentioned that at the momemnt, we can't do it for  
JRockit because of limits contained in the license.  You need to  
double check that.

geir

>
> SY, Alexey
>
> 2007/1/31, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
>> Henrik Stahl wrote:
>> >> If there are any design points in Harmony classlib or VM
>> >> interface that you think would unduly affect JRockit
>> >> achieving peak performance then we should talk about them too.
>> >
>> > Yes. Here's where it gets fun: Standard JRockit is based on class
>> > libraries that we license from Sun. This is not the case with J9  
>> if I
>> > understand correctly.
>>
>> J9 is used with the Sun class libraries in IBM Java SDK 5.0, so it  
>> is a
>> similar situation.
>>
>> > So if you run the JRockit JVM vs the JRockit eval VM for Harmony  
>> and
>> > compare the performance, you will have a reasonable estimate on the
>> > performance of the *class library*. Not entirely apples-to- 
>> apples, of
>> > course, but it's a start.
>>
>> Yep.  Harmony has made some design choices, for example in the  
>> choice of
>> VM kernel classes, that may affect performance with JRockit.  The  
>> kernel
>> classes include those where the VM/JIT/GC has some intimate  
>> knowledge of
>> their behaviour and shape, such as Class, Thread, and Reference.
>>
>> The intent is that VMs can augment that set as they see fit with any
>> additional types that are 'kernel' for them, overriding the generic
>> classlib version.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>


Mime
View raw message