Also the slide 21 should worth an answer: a benchmark of STM with more CPU gives "Performance died – choked in the STM"
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Michael Wood <esiot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2009/9/17 z5h <bolusm...@gmail.com>: > > > > Specifically some problems encountered in Clojure's STM and bytecode > > generation. > > > > > http://www.azulsystems.com/events/javaone_2009/session/2009_J1_JVMLang.pdf > > (Slide's 8 and 20-21) > > I suppose you mean slide 9 rather than 8: > > > Clojure - “almost close” > > * Good: no obvious subroutine calls in inner loop > > * Bad: Massive “ephemeral” object allocation - requires good GC > > * But needs Escape Analysis to go really fast > > * Ugly: fix-num overflow checks everywhere > > * Turn off fix-nums: same speed as Java > > * Weird “holes” - > > * Not-optimized reflection calls here & there > > * Can get reports on generated reflection calls > > Just mentioning that since nobody's commented on it yet. > > -- > Michael Wood <esiot...@gmail.com> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
