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 pmcfirst@gmail.com designates
 209.85.142.190 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=JQmiwYq32fPaLtpd6BQhTTlKsWcayXOIRTNRxHBhp15+tmpitzVr1EmDpI/2DZ6hqQFNTdDdpz1mmmAmL2X4LLVSNcpOEKMyPySi7mDYvfxvIrIffoxRQ9UjuPzmIDE2b6aNpskRISFcn0lgZpI0wx6TsGNbcryjqFSvpmX5Ej8=
Message-ID: <e0f125db0802060820q19eec9eg941e7c42516359ab@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:20:56 +0300
From: "Pavel Pervov" <pmcfirst@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib]remove the duplicate locale data
In-Reply-To: <211709bc0801222341v43cf8f78y4af209410f674928@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <211709bc0711050033o55158d22mad9dce73f8ad4490@mail.gmail.com>
	 <478B832B.4010709@gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790801140808j4ca10824mc9e3733032a0ca9a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <478B8C0A.8070307@gmail.com>
	 <20080114173811.7D7AB4DA0B8@nike.apache.org>
	 <211709bc0801150252x1b902c05r678eb14be29c8718@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790801160829t140aaa4fh8860a3a694e9263b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <211709bc0801202317t460cb1ebg7f2830fba9145e5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4bebff790801220949j2a56d590nf00e5534cf7723c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <211709bc0801222341v43cf8f78y4af209410f674928@mail.gmail.com>

Tony,

Unfortunately, I have a number of JIRAs for you. They all are
regressions after removing duplicate locale data.

Here they go:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5459
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5461
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5465
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5466
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5467
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5468
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5469

I would like to know your opinion on whether they should be fixed of
resolved some other way.

Thanks,
    Pavel.

P.S. There is also HARMONY-5013 which was introduced with moving to
ICU4J 3.8. Could you, please, look at that issue too?

On 1/23/08, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks very much, so we got 4MB src code cutted w/o pay. Cheer!
>
> On 1/23/08, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Tony,
> >
> > The good thing is, after the commit I have compared revisions 610727
> > (before your commit) and 612866 (after your commit) and haven't
> > noticed degradation while running SPECjbb2005 in 2-VM configuration.
> > That's definitely good news :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aleksey.
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2008 10:17 AM, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tony Wu
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>


-- 
Pavel Pervov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division