On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Andrey Yakushev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, let it would be the first step of investigation. But at least add > note that performance and memory footprint wouldn't be worse then now > on defined set of tests. Right. But once again, without any prototype it's hard to guess the performance changes.
Would these requirements fit? a. "The performance DRLVM with UMM enabled should be at least 80% of DRLVM with legacy memory management, as measured by execution on Dacapo, SPECjbb2005 and Eclipse startup". b. "The memory footprint of DRLVM with UMM enabled should be not larger than 120% of DRLVM with legacy memory management, as measured by execution on Dacapo, SPECjbb2005 and Eclipse startup". Though these requirements are more or less loose, they protect from UMM implementation that bloats up the performance or memory footprint many times to be considered successful. Thanks, Aleksey.
