Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-30419-apmail-harmony-dev-archive=harmony.apache.org@harmony.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 40876 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2007 02:46:51 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2007 02:46:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 72619 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2007 02:46:37 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org
Received: (qmail 72592 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2007 02:46:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@harmony.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@harmony.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@harmony.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.harmony.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org
Received: (qmail 72583 invoked by uid 99); 7 Nov 2007 02:46:37 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:46:37 -0800
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of xiaofeng.li@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.251 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.132.251] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.251)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:46:41 +0000
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b8so311527ana
        for <dev@harmony.apache.org>; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:46:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        bh=ICbbceNfcg26YOEaPP9GhjcunIdTsNsM76ufVN7e+j8=;
        b=SQoGZfb5mNvKGBcBmm7wer6Z9Tc4WbTnsJ1KHik64+ivG/pOp1kG8Z4J8ixKdp/OV/ESZZbudW0qHnjCz77dboDXxvph7Ow4uDBtSXvRR4CzMMLLy52CsqkwY3Q0QOdhQ/V46ZYAq0dFsqA+QGSW55V/e8jPiMclOwAulWJAVOg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=Gr589B0F5Haulbxtt/VZfztT7fMLF9SrXMEOQVlIk8W0GlsHJNPYTmCteLaehnkuXYUCor3O4ZLT03K5V8Rn86Vt9MfCbNx2Ch5qG/Vo0JsHx7ddjKzvuTfHqpctgrxV1jhTX6ZMSf2UBbUSX0x7n3Zh1Ig9Ajmlun2AL1uRz7M=
Received: by 10.90.104.14 with SMTP id b14mr4115081agc.1194403580595;
        Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.71.6 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9623c9a50711061846q49e10762t481926aeee428fed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:46:20 +0800
From: "Xiao-Feng Li" <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [perf] Comparative benchmarking
In-Reply-To: <4730F424.8080107@anu.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <472C548F.6030609@gmail.com> <47304FB3.7020306@gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790711060438o422abd60ke22ac2aea811b50e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <473068D4.8030901@gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790711060603h62efddf0p85ccebccffae6e92@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0vqejf3gzke.fsf@gmail.com>
	 <e3b630230711060806k47fbd063ua9ceebc78dabf5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0vqabprgj42.fsf@gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790711061402v78140d33h21f4123a6eb7147f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4730F424.8080107@anu.edu.au>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On Nov 7, 2007 7:09 AM, Robin Garner <robin.garner@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > On 07 Nov 2007 00:27:25 +0300, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Vladimir, guess what? :) I actually mixed several things
> >> altogether.
> >>
> > <giggly>(sigh) As usual, miracle does not happen :) I dreamed to see
> > software sqrt() implementation that could be faster than hardware one.
> > </giggly>
> >
> >
> >> So, we are left with SSE asm that can be inlined by JIT and AFAI can
> >> see it is not as fast as HotSpot? Weird :)
> >>
> > No, for now we have just the intrinsic in native code, so we also have
> > overheads for JNI transition (and it is heavy!), parameter passing,
> > chains of calls, etc. I believe that sqrt() magic will lead that NBody
> > performance very close to RI.
> >
> > BTW, in my thought this benchmark is like the top of the iceberg
> > called "FP performance problems".
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aleksey.
> >
> You might be interested to know that the JikesRVM implementation calls
> out to glibc via a fast syscall (we have an @SysCall annotation for
> native methods), and it is 1.5x slower than Sun 1.6 on a Core2/Linux for
> Tim's (non-strict) benchmark.  Maybe you can squeeze the overhead of
> intrinsic calls down a bit further ?

I am also wondering why not to leverage the system support directly.
This solution is by default portable. :-)

> cheers
>
> cheers
>



-- 
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com