C2: Advantage of parse time inlining
Vladimir Ivanov
vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com
Thu May 14 16:36:45 UTC 2015
Vitaly,
Can you elaborate your question a bit? What do you compare parse-time
inlining with? Mentioning of С1 & profile pollution in this context
confuses me.
Usually, people care about 35 (= MaxInlineSize), because for methods up
to MaxInlineSize their call frequency is ignored. So, fewer chances to
end up with non-inlined call.
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
On 5/14/15 7:09 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
> Any pointers? Sorry to bug you guys, but just want to make sure I
> understand this point as I see quite a bit of discussion on core-libs
> and elsewhere where people are worrying about the 35 bytecode size
> threshold for parse inlining.
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd at gmail.com
> <mailto:vitalyd at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Could someone please explain the advantage, if any, of parse time
> inlining in C2? Given that FreqInlineSize is quite large by default,
> most hot methods will get inlined anyway (well, ones that can be for
> other reasons). What is the advantage of parse time inlining?
>
> Is it quicker time to peak performance if C1 is reached first?
>
> Does it ensure that a method is inlined whereas it may not be if
> it's already compiled into a medium/large method otherwise?
>
> Is parse time inlining not susceptible to profile pollution? I
> suspect it is since the interpreter has already profiled the inlinee
> either way, but wanted to check.
>
> Anything else I'm not thinking about?
>
> Thanks
>
>
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list