On 2011-11-30 11:20, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Lukas Stadler<lukas.stad...@jku.at> wrote: >> Hm, maybe... the fix was really just a tiny tiny bugfix, so that >> shouldn't have caused any performance regressions, although, of course, >> I can't say for sure. >> But maybe something in invokedynamic has changed so that it's impacted >> by coro? I can reproduce it and I'll have to look into this. > I have not looked at compiler logs for indy at all...if you don't > suspect that indy is interfering with coro, then perhaps the execution > pattern is preventing indy from optimizing as well as it should. Exactly. It's still a bug in the coro patch, since it shouldn't impact performance that way. >> Has your usage of invokedynamic changed a lot since the last "perfect" >> performance numbers with invokedynamic? > The numbers on your blog would not have been using invokedynamic at > all. What other numbers are you referring to? > > JRuby is using invokedynamic more and more, but we're not doing > anything *unusual*. I thought that maybe you were refering to a measurement with indy that showed the better numbers. But I guess it wouldn't have been a sudden decline in performance anyway, since it's probably not one specific use of indy that exposes the coro performance regression, but all of them together.
- Lukas _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
