Alexei Fedotov wrote: > Hello Egor, > >> Can anyone, please, help me find a microbenchmark where current CU >> implementation helps? > > Please, check the following tests [1] developed by Nikolay Chugunov. > They just report failure when CU is absent. > > Thanks. > > [1] > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/buildtest/branches/2.0/tests/stress/qa/src/test/stress/org/apache/harmony/test/stress/classloader/unloading/
Ahhh, CU = Class unloading. I thought Compilation Unit. Never mind my last post on this thread 8*) Tim > On 18 Oct 2007 17:53:32 +0400, Egor Pasko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On the 0x373 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote: >>> Rana Dasgupta wrote: >>>> Even in drlvm we have a lot of dll's, and I am not sure that this is a >>>> bad thing. It allows the components to be more modular and actually >>>> can reduce memory footprint, we just have to be more judicious about >>>> what we load at startup. We could also drop things like gc_cc.dll etc. >>>> if we really need to. >>> Certainly helps when there is sharing rather than copying of code/data. >>> And if the DLLs are optional functionality then it allows users to >>> customize the runtime that much easier. For example, the IBM VME can >>> tolerate the removal of the JIT DLL such that (obviously) you only get >>> the interpreter functionality, same for some diagnostics, etc. For >>> people who want to reduce the disk/in memory footprint they can tailor >>> it to suit. >>> >>>> Not sure why distribution size is a big problem, it is the memory >>>> image size that seems more important. >>> Ideally we want both of course<g> but I agree that we should plan to >>> distribute the full set of functionality (the big disk option) and allow >>> people to remove unwanted function as they see fit. >> Can anyone, please, help me find a microbenchmark where current CU >> implementation helps? And did anyone experiment with CU effect on >> DaCapo performance? >> >> not suspicious, just interested.. >> >> -- >> Egor Pasko >> >> > >
