Request for reviews (S): 7078382: JSR 292: don't count method handle adapters against inlining budgets

[Tom Rodriguez]

Yes it looks good.

tom

On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:

> Looks good.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
> 
> Christian Thalinger wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> + // (a) Don't fully count method handle adapters against inlining
>>>     ^ you have only one paragraph so (a) is not needed.
>> Yeah.  I thought maybe we get more in the future :-)  I removed it.
>>> "sites of the adapter" --> "sites in the adapter"
>> Thanks.
>>> Can you not assign inside loop's condition? You can do next:
>>> 
>>> +     while (iter.next() != ciBytecodeStream::EOBC()) {
>>> +       if (Bytecodes::is_invoke(iter.cur_bc())) {
>> Yes, I like that better.  I also changed the example in ciStreams.hpp as I got that code from there.
>>> Other looks good.
>> Thank you.  I updated the webrev.
>> -- Christian
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/30/11 1:07 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>> So, the change is so small that nobody cares? :-)
>>>> 
>>>> -- Christian
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~twisti/7078382/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7078382: JSR 292: don't count method handle adapters against inlining budgets
>>>>> Reviewed-by:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently the code size of method handle adapters are counted against
>>>>> inlining budgets like DesiredMethodLimit.  This results to earlier
>>>>> compiler bailouts with method handle call sites than without leading
>>>>> to worse performance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The fix is to return an adjusted bytecode size for method handle
>>>>> adapters for inlining decisions (the metric we use for now is the
>>>>> number of invokes).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tested with JRuby benchmarks.
>>>>>