harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bob Lee" <crazy...@crazybob.org>
Subject Re: My first submission! java.lang.ThreadLocal
Date Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:36:10 GMT
I'm not sure how you ran it, but I ran MTHarness and Doug Lea's own test
suites on Sun's VM using -server.

Mine was a tad slower on MTHarness (results in bug). In Doug Lea's tests,
the RI and my impl were neck and neck. Josh Bloch ran the same performance
tests on a different machine and saw the same results:

Tie: 3 tests
RI wins: 2 tests
crazybob's wins: 3 tests

Mine also has a smaller memory footprint and collects reclaimed ThreadLocals
more aggressively (less unwanted memory retention).

I'm not sure where you got that the performance is "bad". Are you sure you
ran the right code?


On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> NB: This patch gives 7.6x boost on MTHarness/ThreadLocalBench and +25%
> >> to SPECjvm2008:serial.
> > Good numbers! I read the perf is still bad compared to RI? Have you
> > any estimation about the reason?
> The performance of ThreadLocal is bad compared to RI, while
> SPECjvm2008:serial is not (assuming all other patches are applied). I
> hadn't investigated the reason of ThreadLocal though, but I think the
> problematic area is open-addressed tuple-stored map implementation by
> Bob. Bob, had you tried other layout schemes (like splitting
> key/values arrays, various probing schemes, etc.)? What was the
> rationale behind this implementation?
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message