On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rémi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > So there is a bug in the way the inlining budget is computed. > The pattern doesn't use any side methods is the fast path, > only method handle adapters so it should not entail the > inlining budget at all. > > I've only tested on small examples, so it was always fully inlined > but I think it worth investigating why there is a problem with > the inlining budget.
In my case, I believe Christian determined it was an inlining issue. When I added this pattern into all compiled Ruby code, it bumped up some budget to the point that hot paths stopped inlining. I suspected that it might be NodeCountInlinigCutoff, which currently does not discount MH chains, and Christian said that was indeed possible. The other half of the bug is that when indy + MH chain does not inline, performance is *dismal*. I believe John's upcoming rework of the inlining logic is supposed to fix both issues. > Or it's not an inlining budget problem, the other problem I see > is that if the code is not yet JITed, it's slow, far slower than > a field access even a volatile one, so if the method is not hot > but only warm, you may have trouble. That's certainly true. I doubt it affects most code, though, since if it's hot enough for you to notice that it's slow, it's probably hot enough to JIT. - Charlie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jvm-languages+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
