----- Mail original -----
> De: "Paul Sandoz" <paul.san...@oracle.com>
> À: "Da Vinci Machine Project" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Février 2018 17:52:44
> Objet: Re: Performance of non-static method handles
> At some point in the future it may be possible, with the constant folding
> to express the declaration of a MH locally but it gets stuffed in the constant
> pool (see amber constant-folding) if what the MH is derived from is constant.
> e.g. think of a language compiler intrinsic for ldc.
> That may be improve some use-cases but if any input is not constant we are
> back to the slower path.
you can put the non constant method handle into an inlining cache and
magically, it becomes a constant
>> On Feb 2, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>> Hi Charles,
>> usually, it's because a non constant method handle is not inlined into the
>> so it's as fast as a function call or a method call when you ask to not
>> A way to improve the perf is to profile the method handles that can be seen
>> doing an invokeExact,
>> and inline them if they are few of them, making invokeExact acts as a
>> inlining cache (with an identity check instanceof a class check).
>> Obviously, it's also easy to emulate think kind of cache with an
>> i think Golo has such cache (Golo lambdas are plain method handle),
>> and if you want to go fully circular, you can simulate invokedynamic with an
>> invokeExact on a constant method handle :)
>> see you tomorrow,
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com>
>>> À: "Da Vinci Machine Project" <email@example.com>
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Février 2018 13:33:49
>>> Objet: Re: Performance of non-static method handles
>>> Vladimir Ivanov did some work a few years ago on MH customization for hot MH
>>> instances. It’s in the system. That should get better results than what you
>>> show. I wonder why it isn’t kicking in. You are using invokeExact right?
>>>> On Feb 2, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <head...@headius.com>
>>>> Hey folks!
>>>> I'm running some simple benchmarks for my FOSDEM handles talk and wanted to
>>>> reopen discussion about the performance of non-static-final method handles.
>>>> In my test, I just try to call a method that adds given argument to a
>>>> long. The numbers for reflection and static final handle are what I'd
>>>> with the latter basically being equivalent to a direct call:
>>>> Direct: 0.05ns/call
>>>> Reflected: 3ns/call
>>>> static final Handle: 0.05ns/call
>>>> If the handle is coming from an instance field or local variable, however,
>>>> performance is only slightly faster than reflection. I assume the only real
>>>> improvement in this case is that it doesn't box the long value I pass in.
>>>> local var Handle: 2.7ns/call
>>>> What can we do to improve the performance of non-static method handle
>>>> - Charlie
>>>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev mailing list