Coro patch

[Christian Thalinger]

On Nov 30, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Lukas Stadler wrote:

> On 2011-11-30 11:20, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Lukas Stadler<lukas.stadler at jku.at>  wrote:
>>> Hm, maybe... the fix was really just a tiny tiny bugfix, so that
>>> shouldn't have caused any performance regressions, although, of course,
>>> I can't say for sure.
>>> But maybe something in invokedynamic has changed so that it's impacted
>>> by coro? I can reproduce it and I'll have to look into this.
>> I have not looked at compiler logs for indy at all...if you don't
>> suspect that indy is interfering with coro, then perhaps the execution
>> pattern is preventing indy from optimizing as well as it should.
> Exactly. It's still a bug in the coro patch, since it shouldn't impact 
> performance that way.
>>> Has your usage of invokedynamic changed a lot since the last "perfect"
>>> performance numbers with invokedynamic?
>> The numbers on your blog would not have been using invokedynamic at
>> all. What other numbers are you referring to?
>> 
>> JRuby is using invokedynamic more and more, but we're not doing
>> anything *unusual*.
> I thought that maybe you were refering to a measurement with indy that 
> showed the better numbers.
> But I guess it wouldn't have been a sudden decline in performance 
> anyway, since it's probably not one specific use of indy that exposes 
> the coro performance regression, but all of them together.

Could you look at the inlining first if we are good there?

-- Chris

> 
> - Lukas
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev