harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] jre bundle size
Date Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:11:55 GMT
Same as Tim :-) I didn't quite get the class unloading question on
this thread. Possibly Egor is thinking about footprint reduction.

Egor, in JIRA issue 4477, there is a test that needs unloading to succeed.

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
>
>

Mime
View raw message