On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:25:29 GMT, Vladimir Sitnikov <vsitni...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> IMHO the trigger for this PR was sparing *time*, not necessarily sparing >> *bytes* (the default buffer size is just 8K); the latter certainly is a nice >> and beneficial side effect. But I may be wrong here, then the original >> contributor should chime in now and clarify. > >> IMHO the trigger for this PR was sparing time > > That is fair. Do you know how one could create a reliable test for > performance that would fail without the fix and succeed with the fix? > > I think the allocation is a reasonable proxy for the duration in this case, > and the allocation is more-or-less easy to measure and test if the JVM > supports `getCurrentThreadAllocatedBytes`. Why do you want to put *that* in a test case at all? So far I did not come across performance-based *tests* (only *benchmarks*), i. e. nobody ever requested that from me in any of my NIO optimizations. Typically it was sufficient to document the JMH results before and after a PR *just once* (not dynamically in the form of a test). For *this* PR it is sufficient to proof what the PR's title says: Proof the *direct* call (i. e. the *absence of a copy*) and we're good to merge. I already explained how to proof *that*. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16879#discussion_r1435596696
