On Nov 30, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Lukas Stadler wrote: > 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.
Could you look at the inlining first if we are good there? -- Chris > > - Lukas > _______________________________________________ > mlvm-dev mailing list > mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
