Thanks, Aleksey and all patch committed at r612718. Then I'm going to deal with the non-bug difference. Hopefully many legcy bugs/differences can be fixed this time.
On 1/17/08, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, guys! > > Sure, correctness is important, but performance is important too. I > had profiled both versions (clean and patched) and see no significant > difference there: there are more GC happens what I believe connected > to internal ICU object creation and such. So, there are no obvious way > to maintain the same performance level, and may be we will try again > to eliminate ICU usage from the hotpath of frequently used workloads - > but previous investigation shows it's not that simple. > > Tony, please go ahead with committing this patch, we will deal with > ICU performance issues a little later. > > Thanks, > Aleksey. > > On Jan 15, 2008 1:52 PM, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Aleksey, > > > > Thanks for you help. > > > > I've proved there is no performance degradation on my machine > > mentioned in my previous mail. I suppose the different result on your > > machine is caused by different options to SpecJBB. Anyway, my POV is > > that we should be willing to pay for the adoption of ICU if we have > > to. All of us should be positive on this point. I'd like to clarify > > the factors I'm facing below. > > > > Firstly, the original implementation of harmony is faster but > > incorrect. It is not reasonable to keep the code as is and refuse to > > correct it just because the bad version has better performance. IMHO > > performance is nothing if there is no correctness. > > > > Secondly, we adopt ICU through delegation which involves extra method > > calls than we implement it by ourselves, it does harm to performance > > and can not be worked around. But please do not forget we benefit from > > ICU in bug fixing, maintenance, smaller code size and so on. > > > > Lastly, branching does not make sense to me. My fix is very separate > > in luni and text, I can not guarantee that there is no modification > > during my work, so the synchronization between HEAD and my branch is > > required. Actually only I myself am working on the development work > > (Surely, Aleksey is very helpful on testing), this synchronization > > might be a nightmare to me. Furthermore, the code on branch will not > > be automatically tested by continuous integration system and BTI, I do > > not want to work without collaboration, that's not an open source > > style, right? Will you ask a contributor to create a branch and play > > with himself whenever he wants to contribute? > > > > > > > > On 1/15/08, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 14 January 2008 at 16:21, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > > > > > Yep, Tim, you're right. I believe that new implementation fixes a > > > > > number of bugs and will try to get it not degrading. I just want to > > > > > maintain the performance level of current trunk on the same level, > > > > > gradually fixing functional bugs. I don't like to sacrifice > > > > > performance of HEAD revision for non-critical bugfix. That is, I want > > > > > to see HEAD changes like this: > > > > > > > > > > "high performance, minor bug -> high performance, no bugs" > > > > > > > > > > rather than > > > > > > > > > > "high performance, minor bug -> low performance, no bugs -> high > > > > > performance, no bugs" > > > > > > > > > > ...because anyone could get the HEAD Harmony revision for > > > > > performance measurements at any time. > > > > > > Couldn't someone also get the HEAD Harmony revision and suffer from the > > > known/fixable-with-Tony's-patch bugs at any time? > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > For sure, improving performance and fixing the bugs is the most > > > > desirable state. I actually don't mind some minor performance > > > > regression on HEAD between releases provided it is an area being > > > > actively worked upon. > > > > > > +1 especially if it fixes bugs > > > > > > > I'd also like to get to 4.2Mb source code reduction too ;-) > > > > > > Me too. > > > > > > > If you and Tony are happy to work on the patch to get it perfect then > > > > go ahead. I hope it is not too troublesome to keep it in synch. You > > > > could also consider a branch in SVN. > > > > > > This bothers me too. Firstly, while it is being developed in patch > > > on JIRA, it is likely only Tony and Aleksey will really look at it. > > > Secondly, that progress will be slow because of the cost of keeping in > > > sync - this applies to an SVN branch too. > > > > > > I can't help thinking we'll make more progress if we apply the patch to > > > HEAD now. We'll get wider visibility of problems with the new code - > > > and there are likely issues beyond the performance problems that have > > > been the focus so far - and more people will see the benefit of Tony > > > (and Aleksey's) hard work in getting us to this point. > > > > > > I certainly don't want all this work to be completed outside svn HEAD > > > and committed a week or two before the freeze for next milestone. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Mark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tony Wu > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > -- Tony Wu China Software Development Lab, IBM
