harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] jre bundle size
Date Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:41:08 GMT
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Hello Egor,
>> Can anyone, please, help me find a microbenchmark where current CU
>> implementation helps?
> Please, check the following tests [1] developed by Nikolay Chugunov.
> They just report failure when CU is absent.
> Thanks.
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/branches/2.0/tests/stress/qa/src/test/stress/org/apache/harmony/test/stress/classloader/unloading/

Ahhh, CU = Class unloading.  I thought Compilation Unit.  Never mind my
last post on this thread 8*)


> On 18 Oct 2007 17:53:32 +0400, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the 0x373 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Rana Dasgupta wrote:
>>>> Even in drlvm we have a lot of dll's, and I am not sure that this is a
>>>> bad thing. It allows the components to be more modular and actually
>>>> can reduce memory footprint, we just have to be more judicious about
>>>> what we load at startup. We could also drop things like gc_cc.dll etc.
>>>> if we really need to.
>>> Certainly helps when there is sharing rather than copying of code/data.
>>>  And if the DLLs are optional functionality then it allows users to
>>> customize the runtime that much easier.  For example, the IBM VME can
>>> tolerate the removal of the JIT DLL such that (obviously) you only get
>>> the interpreter functionality, same for some diagnostics, etc.  For
>>> people who want to reduce the disk/in memory footprint they can tailor
>>> it to suit.
>>>> Not sure why distribution size is a big problem, it is the memory
>>>> image size that seems more important.
>>> Ideally we want both of course<g> but I agree that we should plan to
>>> distribute the full set of functionality (the big disk option) and allow
>>> people to remove unwanted function as they see fit.
>> Can anyone, please, help me find a microbenchmark where current CU
>> implementation helps? And did anyone experiment with CU effect on
>> DaCapo performance?
>> not suspicious, just interested..
>> --
>> Egor Pasko

View raw message