harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xiao-Feng Li" <xiaofeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [GSoC] Appliance for harmony-gc-4 "Unify the native memory management of Harmony DRLVM"
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:57:10 GMT
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Andrey Yakushev
<andrey.yakushev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Agreed with Yakushev.
I personally think that both footprint and performance should be
better finally.

As a start point, Shipilev's targets are ok anyway.

Thanks,
xiaofeng

>  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
>



-- 
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message