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

[Christian Thalinger]

Thanks, Tom and Vladimir.  -- Christian

On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:

> 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.
>>>>>> 
>