From thomas.schatzl at oracle.com Mon Sep 3 14:48:10 2018 From: thomas.schatzl at oracle.com (Thomas Schatzl) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 16:48:10 +0200 Subject: Storing both "fasttime" and time in Ticks and Tickspan In-Reply-To: References: <9f542de58eac66a07312da45fb4023893ab6e2e3.camel@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Kim, On Tue, 2018-08-28 at 20:36 -0400, Kim Barrett wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Thomas Schatzl > com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > [...] > So I think the FastUnorderedElapsedCounterSource and everything > related to it should be removed. (I think this includes > cpu/x86/rdtsc_x86.[ch]pp and UseFastUnorderedTimeStamps.) > > Removing a few milliseconds of sleeping during the initialization of > this feature is a nice little startup benefit. > I agree with all that, but I would like to have an opinion from the JFR team too about this before doing this. The alternative I can see would be having GC specific Ticks/Tickspan which I would like to avoid for obvious reasons. Thanks, Thomas From kim.barrett at oracle.com Tue Sep 4 01:11:32 2018 From: kim.barrett at oracle.com (Kim Barrett) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 01:11:32 -0000 Subject: Storing both "fasttime" and time in Ticks and Tickspan In-Reply-To: References: <9f542de58eac66a07312da45fb4023893ab6e2e3.camel@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5F8AF025-116B-4D0B-9EB9-9A37B3A3E51D@oracle.com> > On Sep 3, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > On Tue, 2018-08-28 at 20:36 -0400, Kim Barrett wrote: >>> On Aug 24, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Thomas Schatzl >> com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, > >> [...] >> So I think the FastUnorderedElapsedCounterSource and everything >> related to it should be removed. (I think this includes >> cpu/x86/rdtsc_x86.[ch]pp and UseFastUnorderedTimeStamps.) >> >> Removing a few milliseconds of sleeping during the initialization of >> this feature is a nice little startup benefit. >> > > I agree with all that, but I would like to have an opinion from the > JFR team too about this before doing this. Agreed. > The alternative I can see would be having GC specific Ticks/Tickspan > which I would like to avoid for obvious reasons. Or JFR-specific variants, and let everyone else do what we think is right. > Thanks, > Thomas