harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aleksey Shipilev" <aleksey.shipi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] New ICU release
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:01:23 GMT
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
>
>

Mime
View raw message