harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tony Wu" <wuyue...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib]remove the duplicate locale data
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:17:57 GMT
Thanks, Aleksey and all

patch committed at r612718. Then I'm going to deal with the non-bug
difference. Hopefully many legcy bugs/differences can be fixed this
time.

On 1/17/08, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, guys!
>
> Sure, correctness is important, but performance is important too. I
> had profiled both versions (clean and patched) and see no significant
> difference there: there are more GC happens what I believe connected
> to internal ICU object creation and such. So, there are no obvious way
> to maintain the same performance level, and may be we will try again
> to eliminate ICU usage from the hotpath of frequently used workloads -
> but previous investigation shows it's not that simple.
>
> Tony, please go ahead with committing this patch, we will deal with
> ICU performance issues a little later.
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>
> On Jan 15, 2008 1:52 PM, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Aleksey,
> >
> > Thanks for you help.
> >
> > I've proved there is no performance degradation on my machine
> > mentioned in my previous mail. I suppose the different result on your
> > machine is caused by different options to SpecJBB. Anyway, my POV is
> > that we should be willing to pay for the adoption of ICU if we have
> > to. All of us should be positive on this point. I'd like to clarify
> > the factors I'm facing below.
> >
> > Firstly, the original implementation of harmony is faster but
> > incorrect. It is not reasonable to keep the code as is and refuse to
> > correct it just because the bad version has better performance. IMHO
> > performance is nothing if there is no correctness.
> >
> > Secondly, we adopt ICU through delegation which involves extra method
> > calls than we implement it by ourselves, it does harm to performance
> > and can not be worked around. But please do not forget we benefit from
> > ICU in bug fixing, maintenance, smaller code size and so on.
> >
> > Lastly, branching does not make sense to me. My fix is very separate
> > in luni and text, I can not guarantee that there is no modification
> > during my work, so the synchronization between HEAD and my branch is
> > required. Actually only I myself am working on the development work
> > (Surely, Aleksey is very helpful on testing), this synchronization
> > might be a nightmare to me. Furthermore, the code on branch will not
> > be automatically tested by continuous integration system and BTI, I do
> > not want to work without collaboration, that's not an open source
> > style, right? Will you ask a contributor to create a branch and play
> > with himself whenever he wants to contribute?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/15/08, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14 January 2008 at 16:21, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > > > > Yep, Tim, you're right. I believe that new implementation fixes a
> > > > > number of bugs and will try to get it not degrading. I just want
to
> > > > > maintain the performance level of current trunk on the same level,
> > > > > gradually fixing functional bugs. I don't like to sacrifice
> > > > > performance of HEAD revision for non-critical bugfix. That is, I
want
> > > > > to see HEAD changes like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > "high performance, minor bug -> high performance, no bugs"
> > > > >
> > > > > rather than
> > > > >
> > > > > "high performance, minor bug -> low performance, no bugs ->
high
> > > > > performance, no bugs"
> > > > >
> > > > > ...because anyone could get the HEAD Harmony revision for
> > > > > performance measurements at any time.
> > >
> > > Couldn't someone also get the HEAD Harmony revision and suffer from the
> > > known/fixable-with-Tony's-patch bugs at any time?
> > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > > For sure, improving performance and fixing the bugs is the most
> > > > desirable state.  I actually don't mind some minor performance
> > > > regression on HEAD between releases provided it is an area being
> > > > actively worked upon.
> > >
> > > +1 especially if it fixes bugs
> > >
> > > > I'd also like to get to 4.2Mb source code reduction too ;-)
> > >
> > > Me too.
> > >
> > > > If you and Tony are happy to work on the patch to get it perfect then
> > > > go ahead.  I hope it is not too troublesome to keep it in synch.  You
> > > > could also consider a branch in SVN.
> > >
> > > This bothers me too.  Firstly, while it is being developed in patch
> > > on JIRA, it is likely only Tony and Aleksey will really look at it.
> > > Secondly, that progress will be slow because of the cost of keeping in
> > > sync - this applies to an SVN branch too.
> > >
> > > I can't help thinking we'll make more progress if we apply the patch to
> > > HEAD now.  We'll get wider visibility of problems with the new code -
> > > and there are likely issues beyond the performance problems that have
> > > been the focus so far - and more people will see the benefit of Tony
> > > (and Aleksey's) hard work in getting us to this point.
> > >
> > > I certainly don't want all this work to be completed outside svn HEAD
> > > and committed a week or two before the freeze for next milestone.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >  Mark.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tony Wu
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
>


-- 
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
View raw message