JDK 8 code review request for 7140820 Add covariant overrides to Collections clone methods

[Vitaly Davidovich]

I agree that performance of clone vs copy ctor should be irrelevant in the
grand scheme of things -- I think this question is purely academic at this
point.  I think most call sites that call clone() will have just one (maybe
two) receiver types, so the guard should predict every time in most cases,
and I'd imagine is a cheap check (a type check, which I believe is just a
few instructions).  As for memcpy, I think some compilers generate better
code for it than others by substituting their own version instead of using
the library call, including using different instructions depending on
amount of data to copy and the machine architecture.  Anyway, that's a
whole other topic.  I think the general point is that calling clone() makes
a clearer indication of intent to the JVM, so in theory it should have more
room for optimization.

Cheers


On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Rémi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

> On 01/30/2012 10:17 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>
>> I would also expect clone to run a bit faster than copy constructor, if
>> for
>> nothing else than clone not executing any constructor; this perf diff
>> would
>> probably be more noticeable in interpreter as compiler may inline
>> constructor.  In addition, I'd also think that clone can basically be
>> equivalent to memcpy which should be faster.
>>
>
> It depends if the class if final or not.
> If the class is not final the VM will have to add a guard before calling
> Object.clone().
> Object.clone() is intrinsified (lookup for 'intrinsics' in the source code)
> so it will do a memcopy. A far as I remember, memcopy is slower that
> copying
> fields one by one if there is a few fields (otherwise it's faster).
> Then you need a checkcast at the end and as far as I remember, the VM
> doesn't remove it.
>
> So as Tom said, if the class is final, using a copy constructor is usually
> faster.
>
> Anyway, this is too Hotspot specific and may change in the future,
> moreover I've never seen a call clone() or to a copy constructor
> being the performance bottleneck.
> Stupid algorithms and bad choices of the data structures are far more
> frequent.
>
> Rémi
>
>
>
>> Sent from my phone
>> On Jan 30, 2012 4:08 PM, "Ulf Zibis"<Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>  wrote:
>>
>>  Am 30.01.2012 14:28, schrieb Tom Hawtin:
>>>
>>>  On 30/01/2012 13:16, Ulf Zibis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Isn't cloning faster than normal instantiation?
>>>>> I can imagine, that behind the scenes cloning mainly only needs to
>>>>> duplicate the binary footprint of an object.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I don't see a good reason why it should be (equally, I've not tried
>>>> benchmarking).
>>>>
>>>> For the immediate fields of an object, (partial) bitwise copying "by
>>>> hand" should be of comparable performance to a bitwise clone. For
>>>> copying
>>>> the referenced objects, there is no benefit for the clone.
>>>>
>>>>  Is there anybody, who knows this exactly, e.g. in reference to Hotspot
>>> runtime?
>>>
>>> -Ulf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Vitaly
617-548-7007 (mobile)