Interesting paper. It is good to have a test to verify that Direct MethodHandles installed into the CallSites should have (almost) identical performance as the original code. Obviously we are not quite there yet.
I do think it is any use in making super() link very late. It would only make sense if you could change the inheritance hierarchy very late, which you can't. //Fredrik 2010/9/27 Chanwit Kaewkasi <[email protected]> > Dear all, > > This is another paper on invokedynamic (second to John Rose's :)) to > be appeared in VMIL '10: > > Abstract > ======== > This paper presents a study of a Java Virtual Machine prototype > from the Da Vinci Machine project, defined by JSR 292. It > describes binary translation techniques to prepare benchmarks to > run on the invokedynamic mode of the prototype, resulting > in the invokedynamic version of the SciMark 2.0 suite. > Benchmark preparation techniques presented in this paper are > proven to be useful as the invokedynamic version of > benchmark programs successfully identified strange slowness > behavior of the invokedynamic mode of the server virtual > machine. > > Surprisingly, benchmarking results show that the invoke- > dynamic mode with direct method handles on the server > virtual machine is just 2-5 times slower than native Java > invocations, except the Monte Carlo benchmark. But this mode > on the client virtual machine still requires further performance > tuning. > ======== > > I hope you find it useful somehow and any feedback is very welcome! > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/381580/vmil10_kaewkasi_revised.pdf > > Best regards, > > Chanwit > _______________________________________________ > mlvm-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >
_______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
