Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of t.p.ellison@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=SQN1L2C7qymndEmGztxDc/MdC/WQQsJ8qb/Tf5Ng2u8kGtkg2vuziHARDGR0H8uRJOdsRaPQyl8zgWVb7ZJiC+PfiT9WZd60y6ESacUUSyMSszQYUMpPdl3oRPKb/su156ii9gBMs631hoO5CbIAQWMkOYUifYxoFPNGs6YvP3w=
Message-ID: <4718C204.2020100@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:41:08 +0100
From: Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] jre bundle size
References: <c3755b3a0710161400t3f01ea19n63c029dc9b1020bf@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9623c9a50710161841w1effe2cay8c42b0ac6f4dc11d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <94d710af0710161852u4b165775w93d7742c0fb2e25d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <473c46620710161906y6d2ce612p4cb894ebe1d8490e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0vq8x62s33f.fsf@gmail.com>
 <4715E604.80503@gmail.com>	 <51d555c70710171750i2b05e080o262c64ee447b19d7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47175943.2060602@gmail.com> <0vqsl48r0kj.fsf@gmail.com>
 <c30d70960710190532i7c99b5beja7d29a45bffe6f44@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c30d70960710190532i7c99b5beja7d29a45bffe6f44@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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*)

Tim


> 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
>>
>>
> 
>