Jim Yu wrote: > Hi Aleksey, > The final patch is ready now. Please help to review : )
Patch V1 (as reviewed) applied at r732988. Regards, Tim > 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 >>> > > >
