On the 0x237 day of Apache Harmony George Timoshenko wrote: > Egor Pasko wrote: > > On the 0x236 day of Apache Harmony George Timoshenko wrote: > >> Egor Pasko wrote: > >>> On the 0x235 day of Apache Harmony George Timoshenko wrote: > >>>> Eugene, > >>>> > >>>> I've answered in JIRA: > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2145#action_12455313 > >>>> > >>>> (Summary: Everything is OK) > >>>> > >>>> For this particular testcase it is possible. But there is a general > >>>> problem: > >>>> > >>>> Code layout may be quite unordered. (It mostly depends on hottness, > >>>> not the instructions<->method relations) So a method (say A) body > >>>> can be layouted at two (or more) unsuccessive regions. And the > >>>> regeion between them can belong to some another method (say B). And > >>>> B is _not_ inlined into A. > >>> That is essential, an inlined method can be separated in > >>> non-contiguous regions for performance during CFG alignment. IMHO, we > >>> should register several code blocks for the same inlined method (if > >>> the method's code was split into parts) through the > >>> compiled_method_load(...) interface. This can be done completely on > >>> the JIT side. > >>> What do you, guys, think? > >> No doubts it can be done on the JIT side, but what is the purpose of it? > >> > >> If there is only one question: "I get instruction, which method does > >> it belong to?" it can be answerd easily: > >> > >> For each method jvmtiAddrLocationMap is reported. And each instruction > >> (with particular codeAddress) belongs to the only one such map. > >> > >> I do not understand the necessity of reporting each piece (a number of > >> instructions that goes in a row and belongs to the same method) of a > >> method while we are already reporting _each_instruction_ separately. > > 1. is reporting _each_instruction_ effective? > > It is a Spec. requirement.
could you point the exact line of the spec, please? I cannot find it :( > > 2. VM may want to restore the whole inline tree. How would you do that > > with per-instruction notifications? > > 3. Guys, did you try RI and look how it behaves? Does it report each > > instruction separately? I doubt so. Let's make it as close to RI as > > possible (for compatibility reasons). I should not be difficult. > > > > -- Egor Pasko
