harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wenlong Li" <wenl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Anyone plans to enable interpreter + jit in client mode?
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:52:54 GMT
Aleksey,

I totatlly agree with your point. There is a trade-off between
compilation overhead and code performance.

In my understanding (also from some related work[1]), the startup
means the work before executing user's code in main(). So for startup
optimization, we may think how to reduce the VM creation time, etc. As
for test case, I just use the simple helloworld program to study the
performance bottleneck. I saw there is some work in [1][2] to reduce
the startup cost.

What do you think?
[1] http://edocs.bea.com/jrockit/geninfo/diagnos/tune_startup.html
[2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-ibmjava4/

Thx, Wenlong
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
<aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Wenlong,
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As for interpreter vs. jet or client, I measured the VM creation time
>> of Harmony, and found interpreter takes the least time to create
>> Harmony VM, e.g., 94 ms, while jet takes 121 ms, and client takes 140
>> ms (all these time are for Harmony).
> How exactly are you measuring the startup of VM? What workload do you run?
>
> What's important here is the right balance between compilation
> overhead and the benefits compilation brings. If your code is not
> getting executed, then you measuring compilation overhead only -- not
> surprisingly, JET will slow things down.
>
> I suggest you to make two experiments:
>
>  1. Compare the *code* performance generated by JET vs. interpreter.
> Take some long-running benchmark (like SPECjbb2005) and run in two
> modes: (a) -Xem:jet, (b) -Xem:interpreter
>
>  2. Measure the compilation overhead. Take some real startup benchmark
> (some of SPECjvm2008:startup would fit nicely, I guess) and measure
> what fraction of overall time Jitrino spend compiling, in case of (a)
> JET only, (b) client mode, (c) server mode. There should be the
> facility inside Jitrino to collect timer stats [1], should be enabled
> with -XX:jit.arg.time=on (?).
>
> From experiment 1, you should see that code generated by JET is
> actually faster. From experiment 2, you would see where's the time is
> spent on compilation.
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>
> [1] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/drlvm/JIT.html#Timers
>
>
> At the same time, I compared
>> Harmony with RI in client mode for JVM2008 startup benchmarks. Results
>> show RI is around 2x faster than Sun's 1.5.0_15.
>>
>> Any thought or comment?
>>
>> Thx,
>> Wenlong
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
>> <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Harmony's way to "interpret bytecode" is to compile it with JET. Last
>>> time I measured JET overhead, it was relatively small, like 5% of
>>> overall execution time on Eclipse startup. On another hand, if you
>>> compare performance on JET-compiled code of Harmony (-Xem:jet) with
>>> performance of code interpreted by any  RI, you will see JET rocks. My
>>> other measurements shows JET-compiled code is like 3x times faster
>>> than Sun's 1.5.0_10 interpretation ;)
>>>
>>> Have you any data supporting your proposal?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Aleksey.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Wenlong Li <wenlong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello, all,
>>>>
>>>> Harmony now uses jet+jit in client mode, does anybody know why? Seems
>>>> RI uses interpreter + jit or jit only to compile target program. Does
>>>> anybody have done or plan to support the interpreter + jit in client
>>>> mode? I am asking this question because RI has good startup
>>>> performance, but Harmony has not good startup performance (one of the
>>>> problems is compilation overhead).
>>>>
>>>> Thx,
>>>> Wenlong
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message