On Jan 25, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Leo Li wrote:
Hi, all:
I have just ran the benchmark tests provided by the dacapo.
Although I
just got the result from my machine with default heap size , it
really suprises me: Harmony at least has similar performance
output as RI.
We've shown that before (the similarity in perf :). We have a lot to
be proud of around here.
[SNIP - I couldn't figure out the data in the email - if there was
formatting, I didn't see it. Any chance you want to put that in a
wiki page?]
Further, I still have some problem:
1. Are there performace test suites focused on io,net and nio, where I
suspect the space to improve exists.
If not, we should probably try to write some and start incorporating
into our own suite...
geir
2. Is there performance tests that can provide profiling messages
to help to
diagnose hotspot?
Thanks,
Leo
On 1/25/07, Leo Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/25/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Robin Garner wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/Robin.Garner/dacapo/regression/ - My
> > focus is on DaCapo correctness, the performance test isn't
> > particularly rigorous.
> >
> > IMO for harmony tracking SPECjvm98, SPECjbb2005 and dacapo
would be
> > a good start.
> >
> > One thing you definitely should do in a dedicated Harmony
> > performance test is test across a range of heap sizes. In a
small
> > heap GC improvements and allocation efficiency are more
important -
> > in large heaps locality effects and code quality dominate.
> >
> > If possible, testing on a range of machines would be good too.
>
> I'm hoping that by just making this "plug-n-play" in our build-test
> CI and reporting system, we'll be running in many places in no
time...
+1
Add performance testing to auto build system will be a great help
for us
to monitor the effect of the modification in source code.
geir
>
>
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
