JMC-6324: Values in Method Profiling rule result text not correct when filtering

[Joshua Matsuoka]

Hi Marcus,

Here's an updated patch:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmatsuoka/JMC-6324/webrev.01/

Cheers,

- Josh

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:40 AM Marcus Hirt <marcus at hirt.se> wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> Looks good! Perhaps the percentage shown for the most interesting
> candidate should be updated to show the percentage of the actual
> samples taken? This is since the normalization bars we show as
> backdrop in some columns is in regards to actual events. I think we
> only need to drop the relation to the theoretical maximum amount of
> samples in the user's head once, and only to motivate a lower score
> than expected.
>
> For example:
> The following methods are the most interesting candidates for code
> optimization:
> •se.hirt.jmc.tutorial.hotmethods.HolderOfUniqueValues.countIntersection(HolderOfUniqueValues)
> (24,1 %) 2018-11-09 14:40:39 – 14:41:09
> ->
> The following methods are the most interesting candidates for code
> optimization:
> •se.hirt.jmc.tutorial.hotmethods.HolderOfUniqueValues.countIntersection(HolderOfUniqueValues)
> (98,2 %) 2018-11-09 14:40:39 – 14:41:09
>
> or possible more verbosely:
> The following methods are the most interesting candidates for code
> optimization:
> •se.hirt.jmc.tutorial.hotmethods.HolderOfUniqueValues.countIntersection(HolderOfUniqueValues)
> (98,2 % of the samples) 2018-11-09 14:40:39 – 14:41:09
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcus
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: jmc-dev <jmc-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> För Joshua Matsuoka
> Skickat: den 25 januari 2019 17:46
> Till: jmc-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Ämne: RFR: JMC-6324: Values in Method Profiling rule result text not
> correct when filtering
>
> Hi,
>
> The following patch adds some extra clarity to the Method Profiling rule.
>
> Currently the percentage reported by the Method Profiling rule is the
> percentage of all possible samples in a given period, rather than the
> actual number of samples. This can lead to some rather misleading results
> when for example a method takes up 99% of the actual samples in a window,
> but only constitutes 25% of the theoretical maximum number of samples.
>
> This patch keeps track of both the relation to the maximum, as well as the
> actual percentage of samples and reports both with the rule results (e.g.
> Method x had y% of possible samples and z% of actual samples)
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmatsuoka/JMC-6324/webrev.00/
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Josh
>
>