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: [general][performance] Stefan Krause's Harmony performance evaluation
Date Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:31:13 GMT
Hi Xiaoming!

Yep, I would really appreciate it. Do you need an assistance on this topic?

Thanks,
Aleksey.

2008/7/4 Gu, Xiaoming <xiaoming.gu@intel.com>:
> Hi,  Aleksey and all. I'm a newbie in Xiaofeng's team. May I take the 1st problem? Thanks.
>
> Xiaoming
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiao-Feng Li [mailto:xiaofeng.li@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:55 PM
> To: Gu, Xiaoming
> Subject: Fwd: [general][performance] Stefan Krause's Harmony performance evaluation
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>
> Date: 2008/7/4
> Subject: Re: [general][performance] Stefan Krause's Harmony
> performance evaluation
> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>
>
> Hi Gregory, all,
>
> The performance is important for JRE too.
>
> BTW, I had profiled spectralnorm benchmark and see following problems:
>
> 1. Bad instruction selection for integer divide:
>
> int a;
> int b = a / 2;
>
> generates into:
>
> mov eax, a
> mov ebx, 2
> idiv eax, ebx
>
> but it's better to
>
> mov eax, a
> shl eax, 1
>
> Manual change in Java code brings +60% to spectralnorm performance
> (execution time downs from 10secs to 6secs). There should be better
> instruction selection for divide operation. Would someone take it? If
> not, I would try to produce the patch for Jitrino this weekend.
>
>
> 2. Recompilation events propagation
>
> Consider the following call chain:
> main() --[n times]--> A() --[m times]--> B()
>
> Now consider, m >> n, then B() should be inlined. But such the
> inlining will be done during the recompilation of method A(), which
> waits for n to rise up (that's true for current server.emconf with
> edge profiler enabled). On first glance, one of the solutions will be
> propagation of such recompilation requests up the call chain. Any
> ideas here are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 4 июля 2008 Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> TWIMC,
>>>
>>> Stefan Krause publishes another review on Java vs. C performance here:
>>> http://www.stefankrause.net/wp/?p=9#comments
>>>
>>> It seems like Harmony has "a long way to go" in performance :)
>>> I'm gonna look on some of these tests in near term.
>>
>> It is interesting to see that IBM is often quite close to Harmony in
>> performance. In fact Harmony acts quite well in its current state. I think
>> though that performance for Java is always a 2nd priority after stability.
>> Look at IBM, its Java is targeted at servers where stability is what is
>> important.
>>
>> Looking at the occasional test failures on the alerts mail list it seems like
>> stability is the number one focus for improvement and it is a by far harder
>> to move in that direction.
>>
>> --
>> Gregory
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
>
Mime
View raw message