harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] New ICU release
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:46:42 GMT
That's great - thanks Aleksey!

Regards,
Oliver

Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Wow, thanks Oliver. My head is spinning these days, I forgot about new
> ICU library.
>
> Ok, last time we have measured the performance without Tony's patch
> onboard, so we might recheck migration to ICU 3.8.1 again. Since
> Tony's patch delegates much more functionality to ICU, the performance
> benefits/degradations should be more evident. Hopefully will check
> tomorrow.
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>
> On Jan 16, 2008 8:51 PM, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Aleksey (and anyone else interested!)
>>
>> Do you have any further comments on these changes? With the recent
>> discussion over Tony's work on removing duplicate locale data I was
>> wondering if it would be ok to step up to this stable release if icu4j
>> and deal with performance issues "in the wild"? It seems to me that
>> while we stall upgrading to a release version of this library it's
>> performance will never be closely examined, and as such will continue to
>> put the upgrade on hold indefinitely.
>>
>> I would suggest we move to icu4j 3.8.1 and begin to feed back
>> performance queries to the ICU team. Are there objections?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>>
>> Oliver Deakin wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Aleksey,
>>>
>>> Thanks for performance testing the changes. It's great that the Dacapo
>>> benchmark has not been affected by this change, but I agree that the
>>> small SPEC degradation is a concern. However, I would argue that we
>>> should still upgrade to the new version. At this point I value bug
>>> fixes and stability over performance, and IMHO moving to a proper
>>> release version of icu4j is preferable to using the current mid
>>> development cycle build we have in SVN, even if there is a slight
>>> degradation in one of the benchmarks.
>>>
>>> I would personally suggest that we still move to the new version of
>>> icu4j after M4 and address the performance issues as an ongoing task
>>> with the ICU developers.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hi, Oliver!
>>>>
>>>> This change:
>>>>  a. does not affect composite Dacapo performance
>>>>  b. degrades SPECjbb2005 performance for 1-2%.
>>>>
>>>> Taking (b) into the account, I would like to vote for deferring
>>>> immediate moving to ICU 3.8.1. We can revisit this one more time if
>>>> there's a way to beat the degradation.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Aleksey.
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 14, 2007 3:53 PM, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Thanks for offering to help Aleksey, that's great!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ive opened HARMONY-5313 and attached a script and a patch to be
>>>>> applied.
>>>>> Please run the script before applying the patch, as one file needs
>>>>> to be
>>>>> moved before it is patched. Once it's applied, if you run the
>>>>> fetch-depends target you should see that the new ICU4J jars are
>>>>> downloaded. Then if you just rebuild you should be ready to run with
>>>>> the
>>>>> new version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the help!
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Thanks, Oliver!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Performance data on microtests is looking good, however I wonder
what
>>>>>> impact it has on DRLVM and large benchmarks. Haven't you filed JIRA
>>>>>> for this issue? If I'll have exact steps to build configuration with
>>>>>> new ICU, I could check it's performance before committing the changes
>>>>>> to the trunk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aleksey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2007 8:08 PM, Oliver Deakin
>>>>>> <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Thanks Aleksey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have run the JUnit tests with the IBM VME and they pass without
any
>>>>>>> new failures. I have also run the encoding/decoding test in
>>>>>>> HARMONY-3709
>>>>>>> a number of times - in general, ICU4J 3.8.1 performs in that
test as
>>>>>>> well or slightly better than the ICU4J 3.8 jar we are currently
>>>>>>> using. I
>>>>>>> have attached the results of the latest run I made [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> DECODING:
>>>>>>> Small Input:
>>>>>>>   Decoding: GB18030 , 1000000 times
>>>>>>>   Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 890.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 593.0
>>>>>>> Small Input:
>>>>>>>   Decoding: ISO-8859-1 , 1000000 times
>>>>>>>   Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 328.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 328.0
>>>>>>> Small Input:
>>>>>>>   Decoding: UTF-8 , 1000000 times
>>>>>>>   Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 344.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 360.0
>>>>>>> Large Input:
>>>>>>>   Decoding: GB18030 , 1000 times
>>>>>>>   Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 2110.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 1968.0
>>>>>>> Large Input:
>>>>>>>   Decoding: ISO-8859-1 , 1000 times
>>>>>>>   Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 157.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 156.0
>>>>>>> Large Input:
>>>>>>>   Decoding: UTF-8 , 1000 times
>>>>>>>   Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 735.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 719.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ENCODING:
>>>>>>> Small Input:
>>>>>>>   Encoding: GB18030 , 1000000 times
>>>>>>>  Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 969.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 1063.0
>>>>>>> Small Input:
>>>>>>>   Encoding: ISO-8859-1 , 1000000 times
>>>>>>>  Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 344.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 344.0
>>>>>>> Small Input:
>>>>>>>   Encoding: UTF-8 , 1000000 times
>>>>>>>  Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 359.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 359.0
>>>>>>> Large Input:
>>>>>>>   Encoding: GB18030 , 1000 times
>>>>>>>  Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 7407.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 7297.0
>>>>>>> Large Input:
>>>>>>>   Encoding: ISO-8859-1 , 1000 times
>>>>>>>  Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 219.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 219.0
>>>>>>> Large Input:
>>>>>>>   Encoding: UTF-8 , 1000 times
>>>>>>>  Current ICU4J Milliseconds: 625.0
>>>>>>>   ICU4J 3.8.1 Milliseconds: 610.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Good news, Oliver!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, basing on our previous experiences with ICU changes,
we
>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> first try how Harmony performs with new ICU onboard before
making
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> change default. That's not only JUnit and other validation
>>>>>>>> suites, but
>>>>>>>> performance too (say, Dacapo and other benchmarks performance).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Aleksey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2007 2:53 PM, Oliver Deakin
>>>>>>>> <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> ICU 3.8.1 has just been released, so Id like to propose
that
>>>>>>>>> after M4 we
>>>>>>>>> upgrade to this release, add it to the fetch-depends
target and
>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>> the "homemade" ICU4J jar we have stored in SVN.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Im running the tests with the new version now to make
sure there
>>>>>>>>> are no
>>>>>>>>> regressions and will be happy to make the required changes
when
>>>>>>>>> the time
>>>>>>>>> comes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Objections?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Oliver Deakin
>>>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
Wales
>>>>>>>>> with number 741598.
>>>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>>>>>>>>> Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver Deakin
>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with
>>>>>>> number 741598.
>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>>>>>>> PO6 3AU
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver Deakin
>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>>>> number 741598.
>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>>>>> PO6 3AU
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>> --
>> Oliver Deakin
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


Mime
View raw message