RFC (M) 8058968: Compiler time traces should be improved

[Vladimir Ivanov]

Looks good.

Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov

On 9/24/14, 5:22 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 08:57 PM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>> Looks good to me. Thanks for taking care of this long-standing cleanup.
>
> Thanks for review, Vladimir!
>
>> As a request for further improvements, I'd like to see the following:
>>
>> * More fine grained details about "Incremental Inline"
>>    We do additional optimization passes during incremental inlining, so
>> it'd be great to see where we actually spend time.
>
> Done:
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8058968/webrev.02/
>
> I also cleaned up formatting, and put a bit more probes in other places.
> This patch finally passes JPRT (modulo some unrelated LF tests
> failures), and I think it is ready for prime-time.

>
> Please review and sponsor!
>
>> * The following information segregated by compiler type (C1/C2):
>>    Total compiled methods   :  19359 methods
>>      Standard compilation   :  19298 methods
>>      On stack replacement   :     61 methods
>>    Total compiled bytecodes : 4777417 bytes
>>      Standard compilation   : 4717650 bytes
>>      On stack replacement   :  59767 bytes
>>    Average compilation speed:  20330 bytes/s
>>
>>    nmethod code size        : 107922240 bytes
>>    nmethod total size       : 201508520 bytes
>
> Alas, these counters are also fed into JMX events, and so a bit more
> careful rewrite is required to separate for C1/C2 here.
>
>> * Additional statistics about Tiered compilation (compilation task
>> counts per level) would be useful here as well.
>
> Ditto, and we would also probably like to expose these things in JMX/JFR
> events.
>
>> I'm fine if these enhancements go is as separate changes though.
>
> So recorded:
>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059020
>
> Current change already covers enough complexity, and provides quite a
> few insights into compiler performance, so I would like to see this
> pushed in first without stalling for other feature suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> -Aleksey.
>
>