RFR(XS): JDK-8010941: MinJumpTableSize is set to 18, investigate if that's still optimal

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On 09/09/2013 01:16 PM, Niclas Adlertz wrote:
> On 2013-09-06 14:02, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 09/06/2013 03:54 PM, Niclas Adlertz wrote:
>>>> It is customary for us (perf guys) to create multiple
>>>> @GMB methods with different problems sizes, and run them in single JMH
>>>> session.
>>> That would have been smarter, yes. I'll do that next time. Thanks.
>>> And thank you for helping me with JMH. 
>> Sure, any time.
>>
>>>> Yes, "10" seems the turn-point for X64; for SPARC, I'd set it to "5".
>>> Ok, I'll have one value for each platform instead. 
>>>
>>> WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~adlertz/JDK-8010941/webrev02/
>> Good!
>>
>> I worry about the 32-bit x86 though. It seems the register pressure with
>> jump tables is higher? If so, the turn-point for x86 can be even larger.
>> Can you double-check the 32-bit x86 VM?
>>
>> -Aleksey.
>>
> Hi Aleksey.
> 
> I don't think the register pressure is higher using a jump table since
> it's just a jump to an address with an offset.
> In fact, tests seem to show the opposite; with a lookup table
> (implemented as a binary search) fewer registers seem to have a negative
> impact.
> When we have 6 cases, it's actually faster to use a jump table on 32-bit
> x86 instead of a lookup table (compared to 10 on x64).

Thumbs up. Let's go with your change then.

-Aleksey.