harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-6056) [classlib][jit][opt][performance] Optimize heap allocations in String(String, int) constructor for JIT
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:08:09 GMT
Jim Yu wrote:
> Hi Aleksey,
> The final patch is ready now. Please help to review : )

Patch V1 (as reviewed) applied at r732988.

Regards,
Tim

> 2009/1/9 Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>
> 
>> Jim,
>>
>> Given the optimal version is based on your patch, can you produce the
>> final patch?
>>
>> IMO, it shouldn't include in-place conversion, rather it should be
>> pure Integer.toString() optimization for now.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aleksey.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jim Yu <junjie0122@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Aleksey and Kevin,
>>> It is a good news! The "jim-aleksey" patch is very awesome! I agree to
>> apply
>>> this patch.
>>>
>>> 2009/1/8 Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Hi Jim, Kevin,
>>>>
>>>> There are good things in both patches: Jim's one does the tricky
>>>> lookup for big integers, which benefit for them; Kevin's one does
>>>> division very cheaply.
>>>>
>>>> I had tried several implementations of radix-10 Integer.toString():
>>>>  - (original) baseline, present in trunk
>>>>  - (kevin) Kevin's original one from HARMONY-6056
>>>>  - (kevin-aleksey) Kevin's one + guessing the buffer size
>>>>  - (jim) Jim's one from HARMONY-6068
>>>>  - (jim-aleksey) Jim's one + optimized division for small integers
>>>>
>>>> The merged patch is attached to
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6068.
>>>>
>>>> The results are below. In short, Jim's patch rocks! :) It rocks even
>>>> more on small integers with Kevin's ideas. The best one is
>>>> "jim-aleksey", but it's too heavy to just copy-paste to String(String,
>>>> int) constructor, so there's a need in in-place Integer.toString()
>>>> conversion.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> (ops/msec, the more the better)
>>>>
>>>> original-1024Mb:
>>>> *3969, 2612, 1944, 1481, 1168,
>>>> 3831, 2557, 1906, 1447, 1153,
>>>> 3692, 2635, 1971, 1495, 1186,
>>>> 3914, 2626, 1958, 1482, 1170,
>>>> 3947, 2630, 1961, 1478, 1179,
>>>>
>>>> kevin-1024Mb:
>>>> 5041, 3343, 2484, 1883, 1566,
>>>> 5010, 3329, 2454, 1907, 1543,
>>>> 5009, 3325, 2473, 1886, 1539,
>>>> 4969, 3314, 2450, 1884, 1549,
>>>> 4901, 3271, 2457, 1868, 1542,
>>>>
>>>> kevin-aleksey-1024Mb:
>>>> 5041, 4043, 3364, 2867, 2340,
>>>> 5010, 3962, 3368, 2852, 2333,
>>>> 4993, 3992, 3318, 2857, 2303,
>>>> 4953, 3997, 3318, 2847, 2313,
>>>> 4946, 3947, 3311, 2841, 2303,
>>>>
>>>> jim-1024Mb:
>>>> 4681, 3566, 3019, 2976, 2897,
>>>> 4810, 3558, 3054, 2954, 2880,
>>>> 4802, 3530, 2982, 2943, 2868,
>>>> 4795, 3481, 2991, 2918, 2862,
>>>> 4744, 3476, 2954, 2902, 2849,
>>>>
>>>> jim-aleksey-1024Mb:
>>>> 5041, 3977, 2919, 2964, 2860,
>>>> 5066, 3918, 2951, 2929, 2873,
>>>> 5090, 3918, 2886, 2920, 2875,
>>>> 5018, 3918, 2938, 2934, 2878,
>>>> 4978, 3917, 2921, 2868, 2831,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Aleksey.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Jim Yu <junjie0122@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Aleksey! I think my patch is a general solution for this case
>> and
>>>> has
>>>>> no dependency on any optimized feature of J9 VM : )
>>>>> 2009/1/8 Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's awesome, Jim!
>>>>>> Thanks for coming in :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, you seem to be missing the point. I was talking about
>>>>>> refactoring Kevin's patch to fit the stated requirements. This is
>>>>>> merely because Kevin claim the patch already gives the boost for
>>>>>> SPECjbb2005. Kevin already has the specialized conversion in
>>>>>> String(String, int) private constructor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, your specialized version looks good with regards to
>>>>>> performance numbers, we need to test what's better for radix-10
>>>>>> conversion: Jim's version or Kevin's one now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot,
>>>>>> Aleksey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Jim Yu <junjie0122@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Aleksey,
>>>>>>> I very agree with you and I have implemented an optimized algorithm
>>>> for
>>>>>>> Integer.toString(int) method. Thanks to your benchmark, here
are
>> the
>>>> test
>>>>>>> results[1] on my windows platform.  I've raised a JIRA at
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6068
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> Result for Harmony java6 branch:
>>>>>>> (String)base + (int)add:
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>  base length (vars with rows): 0..2..10
>>>>>>>  add length (vars with cols): 0..2..10
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  loop duration = 100 msecs
>>>>>>>  target variance = 0.05
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ops/msec, the more the better:
>>>>>>> 6721, 6096, *4650, *3846, *3178,
>>>>>>> *8080, *5833, *4447, 3731, 3048,
>>>>>>> *7985, *5848, 4788, 3727, *3114,
>>>>>>> *7891, 5592, *4389, *3560, 3048,
>>>>>>> 8388, 5607, *4522, 3727, 3051,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After applied my patch:
>>>>>>> (String)base + (int)add:
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>  base length (vars with rows): 0..2..10
>>>>>>>  add length (vars with cols): 0..2..10
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  loop duration = 100 msecs
>>>>>>>  target variance = 0.05
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ops/msec, the more the better:
>>>>>>> 8322, 6721, 4791, 4788, 4788,
>>>>>>> 8388, 6721, 5156, *5012, 4797,
>>>>>>> 8388, 6707, 5161, *4963, 4795,
>>>>>>> 8388, 6707, *5126, 4802, 4788,
>>>>>>> *8048, 6700, *5021, 4802, *4687,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2009/1/7 Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, we can implement the in-place Integer.toString() and
>> specialize
>>>>>>>> the radix-10 conversion in Integer. Then Classlib performance
guys
>>>>>>>> might use the inplace conversion to optimize StringBuilder
>>>> performance
>>>>>>>> or even catch the concatenation like J9 does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My idea is to share whatever optimization between all VMs
that use
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Classlib.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Aleksey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Tim Ellison <
>> t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am I understanding right that private String(String,
int) is
>>>> inlined
>>>>>>>>>> by J9 JIT when (String)s1 + (int)v1 is required?
>>>>>>>>> Yes - so for DRLVM, Kevin's patch in HARMONY-6056 will
be
>> impotent.
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>> Jim, Jun Jie Yu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Jim, Jun Jie Yu
>>>>>
>>>>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Jim, Jun Jie Yu
>>>
>>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message