harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrey Yakushev" <andrey.yakus...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [GSoC] Appliance for harmony-gc-4 "Unify the native memory management of Harmony DRLVM"
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:41:03 GMT
You want to have big gap from the beginning. :)
I think its OK, but I suggest removing SPECjbb as not too
representative for native memory usage.

On 4/2/08, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Andrey Yakushev
> <andrey.yakushev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  OK, let it would be the first step of investigation. But at least add
> >  note that performance and memory footprint wouldn't be worse then now
> >  on defined set of tests.
> Right. But once again, without any prototype it's hard to guess the
> performance changes.
>
> Would these requirements fit?
>  a. "The performance DRLVM with UMM enabled should be at least 80% of
> DRLVM with legacy memory management, as measured by execution on
> Dacapo, SPECjbb2005 and Eclipse startup".
>  b. "The memory footprint of DRLVM with UMM enabled should be not
> larger than 120% of DRLVM with legacy memory management, as measured
> by execution on Dacapo, SPECjbb2005 and Eclipse startup".
>
> Though these requirements are more or less loose, they protect from
> UMM implementation that bloats up the performance or memory footprint
> many times to be considered successful.
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>


-- 
Thanks,
Andrey

Mime
View raw message