On 29.04.2016 10:28, Michael Haupt wrote:
All, see http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mhaupt/8031043/ for a snapshot of what is currently available. We have three patches: * Christian's, which simply reduces the HashMap size, * Peter's, which refactors ClassValueMap into a WeakHashMap, * mine, which attempts to introduce the single-value storage optimization John had suggested (I worked on performance with Aleksey - thanks!). All of these are collected in the patches subdirectory for convenience. (Peter, I adapted your patch to the new Unsafe location.) I extended Peter's benchmark (thanks!) to cover single-value storage; the source code is in the benchmark subdirectory, together with raw results from running the benchmark with each of the three patches applied. A results-only overview is in benchmark-results.txt. The three are roughly on par. I'm not sure the single-value storage optimization improves much on footprint given the additional data that must be kept around to make transition to map storage safe. Opinions?
my fear is a bit that having only a single value, will not be enough if you have for example multiple dynamic languages running... let's say Nashorn, JRuby, and Groovy. Also, if I ever get there, using multiple values would become a normal case in Groovy.
So any size depending optimization looks problematic for me bye Jochen _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
