You want to have big gap from the beginning. :) I think its OK, but I suggest removing SPECjbb as not too representative for native memory usage.
On 4/2/08, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > -- Thanks, Andrey
