On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Andrey Yakushev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
Agreed with Yakushev. I personally think that both footprint and performance should be better finally. As a start point, Shipilev's targets are ok anyway. Thanks, xiaofeng > 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 > -- http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
