Hi Aleksey, The final patch is ready now. Please help to review : ) 2009/1/9 Aleksey Shipilev <[email protected]>
> Jim, > > Given the optimal version is based on your patch, can you produce the > final patch? > > IMO, it shouldn't include in-place conversion, rather it should be > pure Integer.toString() optimization for now. > > Thanks, > Aleksey. > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jim Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Aleksey and Kevin, > > It is a good news! The "jim-aleksey" patch is very awesome! I agree to > apply > > this patch. > > > > 2009/1/8 Aleksey Shipilev <[email protected]> > > > >> Hi Jim, Kevin, > >> > >> There are good things in both patches: Jim's one does the tricky > >> lookup for big integers, which benefit for them; Kevin's one does > >> division very cheaply. > >> > >> I had tried several implementations of radix-10 Integer.toString(): > >> - (original) baseline, present in trunk > >> - (kevin) Kevin's original one from HARMONY-6056 > >> - (kevin-aleksey) Kevin's one + guessing the buffer size > >> - (jim) Jim's one from HARMONY-6068 > >> - (jim-aleksey) Jim's one + optimized division for small integers > >> > >> The merged patch is attached to > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6068. > >> > >> The results are below. In short, Jim's patch rocks! :) It rocks even > >> more on small integers with Kevin's ideas. The best one is > >> "jim-aleksey", but it's too heavy to just copy-paste to String(String, > >> int) constructor, so there's a need in in-place Integer.toString() > >> conversion. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> -------- > >> (ops/msec, the more the better) > >> > >> original-1024Mb: > >> *3969, 2612, 1944, 1481, 1168, > >> 3831, 2557, 1906, 1447, 1153, > >> 3692, 2635, 1971, 1495, 1186, > >> 3914, 2626, 1958, 1482, 1170, > >> 3947, 2630, 1961, 1478, 1179, > >> > >> kevin-1024Mb: > >> 5041, 3343, 2484, 1883, 1566, > >> 5010, 3329, 2454, 1907, 1543, > >> 5009, 3325, 2473, 1886, 1539, > >> 4969, 3314, 2450, 1884, 1549, > >> 4901, 3271, 2457, 1868, 1542, > >> > >> kevin-aleksey-1024Mb: > >> 5041, 4043, 3364, 2867, 2340, > >> 5010, 3962, 3368, 2852, 2333, > >> 4993, 3992, 3318, 2857, 2303, > >> 4953, 3997, 3318, 2847, 2313, > >> 4946, 3947, 3311, 2841, 2303, > >> > >> jim-1024Mb: > >> 4681, 3566, 3019, 2976, 2897, > >> 4810, 3558, 3054, 2954, 2880, > >> 4802, 3530, 2982, 2943, 2868, > >> 4795, 3481, 2991, 2918, 2862, > >> 4744, 3476, 2954, 2902, 2849, > >> > >> jim-aleksey-1024Mb: > >> 5041, 3977, 2919, 2964, 2860, > >> 5066, 3918, 2951, 2929, 2873, > >> 5090, 3918, 2886, 2920, 2875, > >> 5018, 3918, 2938, 2934, 2878, > >> 4978, 3917, 2921, 2868, 2831, > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Aleksey. > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Jim Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Thanks Aleksey! I think my patch is a general solution for this case > and > >> has > >> > no dependency on any optimized feature of J9 VM : ) > >> > 2009/1/8 Aleksey Shipilev <[email protected]> > >> > > >> >> That's awesome, Jim! > >> >> Thanks for coming in :) > >> >> > >> >> However, you seem to be missing the point. I was talking about > >> >> refactoring Kevin's patch to fit the stated requirements. This is > >> >> merely because Kevin claim the patch already gives the boost for > >> >> SPECjbb2005. Kevin already has the specialized conversion in > >> >> String(String, int) private constructor. > >> >> > >> >> Nevertheless, your specialized version looks good with regards to > >> >> performance numbers, we need to test what's better for radix-10 > >> >> conversion: Jim's version or Kevin's one now. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks a lot, > >> >> Aleksey. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Jim Yu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > Hi Aleksey, > >> >> > I very agree with you and I have implemented an optimized algorithm > >> for > >> >> > Integer.toString(int) method. Thanks to your benchmark, here are > the > >> test > >> >> > results[1] on my windows platform. I've raised a JIRA at > >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6068 > >> >> > [1] > >> >> > Result for Harmony java6 branch: > >> >> > (String)base + (int)add: > >> >> > ------------------------------------------- > >> >> > base length (vars with rows): 0..2..10 > >> >> > add length (vars with cols): 0..2..10 > >> >> > > >> >> > loop duration = 100 msecs > >> >> > target variance = 0.05 > >> >> > > >> >> > ops/msec, the more the better: > >> >> > 6721, 6096, *4650, *3846, *3178, > >> >> > *8080, *5833, *4447, 3731, 3048, > >> >> > *7985, *5848, 4788, 3727, *3114, > >> >> > *7891, 5592, *4389, *3560, 3048, > >> >> > 8388, 5607, *4522, 3727, 3051, > >> >> > > >> >> > After applied my patch: > >> >> > (String)base + (int)add: > >> >> > ------------------------------------------- > >> >> > base length (vars with rows): 0..2..10 > >> >> > add length (vars with cols): 0..2..10 > >> >> > > >> >> > loop duration = 100 msecs > >> >> > target variance = 0.05 > >> >> > > >> >> > ops/msec, the more the better: > >> >> > 8322, 6721, 4791, 4788, 4788, > >> >> > 8388, 6721, 5156, *5012, 4797, > >> >> > 8388, 6707, 5161, *4963, 4795, > >> >> > 8388, 6707, *5126, 4802, 4788, > >> >> > *8048, 6700, *5021, 4802, *4687, > >> >> > > >> >> > 2009/1/7 Aleksey Shipilev <[email protected]> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Ok, we can implement the in-place Integer.toString() and > specialize > >> >> >> the radix-10 conversion in Integer. Then Classlib performance guys > >> >> >> might use the inplace conversion to optimize StringBuilder > >> performance > >> >> >> or even catch the concatenation like J9 does. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> My idea is to share whatever optimization between all VMs that use > >> the > >> >> >> Classlib. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks, > >> >> >> Aleksey. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Tim Ellison < > [email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > >> >> >> >> Am I understanding right that private String(String, int) is > >> inlined > >> >> >> >> by J9 JIT when (String)s1 + (int)v1 is required? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Yes - so for DRLVM, Kevin's patch in HARMONY-6056 will be > impotent. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Regards, > >> >> >> > Tim > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Best Regards, > >> >> > Jim, Jun Jie Yu > >> >> > > >> >> > China Software Development Lab, IBM > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Jim, Jun Jie Yu > >> > > >> > China Software Development Lab, IBM > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Jim, Jun Jie Yu > > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > -- Best Regards, Jim, Jun Jie Yu China Software Development Lab, IBM
