subject:"RFR\: 8274715\: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList"

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v3]

2021-10-05 Thread Martin Buchholz

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:51:31 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов 
 wrote:

>> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
>> 
>> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
>> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
>> 
>> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
>> 
>> @State(Scope.Thread)
>> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
>> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
>> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>>   int size;
>> 
>>   private List list;
>> 
>>   @Setup
>>   public void prepare() {
>> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>>   }
>> 
>>   @Benchmark
>>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
>> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> before
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
>> 1.854   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
>> 3.784   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
>> 17.919   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> 
>> after
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
>> 0.065   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
>> 0.570   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
>> 2.476   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>
> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   8274715: Properly format NCopiesBenchmarks.java

I've never sponsored a github change and https://openjdk.java.net/sponsor/ is 
unhelpfully stale.
Oh wait ... I now see 
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/SKARA/Pull+Request+Commands#PullRequestCommands-/sponsor

-

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v3]

2021-10-05 Thread Martin Buchholz

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:51:31 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов 
 wrote:

>> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
>> 
>> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
>> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
>> 
>> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
>> 
>> @State(Scope.Thread)
>> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
>> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
>> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>>   int size;
>> 
>>   private List list;
>> 
>>   @Setup
>>   public void prepare() {
>> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>>   }
>> 
>>   @Benchmark
>>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
>> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> before
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
>> 1.854   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
>> 3.784   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
>> 17.919   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> 
>> after
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
>> 0.065   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
>> 0.570   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
>> 2.476   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>
> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   8274715: Properly format NCopiesBenchmarks.java

Looks good!

-

Marked as reviewed by martin (Reviewer).

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

2021-10-05 Thread Сергей Цыпанов

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:18:57 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов 
 wrote:

>> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
>> 
>> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
>> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
>> 
>> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
>> 
>> @State(Scope.Thread)
>> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
>> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
>> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>>   int size;
>> 
>>   private List list;
>> 
>>   @Setup
>>   public void prepare() {
>> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>>   }
>> 
>>   @Benchmark
>>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
>> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> before
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
>> 1.854   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
>> 3.784   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
>> 17.919   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> 
>> after
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
>> 0.065   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
>> 0.570   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
>> 2.476   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>
> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional 
> commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into ncopies
>  - 8274715: Add NCopiesBenchmarks.java
>  - 8274715: Revert some irrelevant changes
>  - 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

Done

-

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v3]

2021-10-05 Thread Сергей Цыпанов

> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
> 
> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
> 
> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
> 
> @State(Scope.Thread)
> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>   int size;
> 
>   private List list;
> 
>   @Setup
>   public void prepare() {
> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>   }
> 
>   @Benchmark
>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>   }
> }
> 
> 
> 
> before
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
> 1.854   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
> 3.784   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
> 17.919   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> 
> after
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
> 0.065   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
> 0.570   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
> 2.476   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts

Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
commit since the last revision:

  8274715: Properly format NCopiesBenchmarks.java

-

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524/files/18f5d589..7655be8f

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=2524=02
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=2524=01-02

  Stats: 13 lines in 1 file changed: 1 ins; 0 del; 12 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2524/head:pull/2524

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

2021-10-05 Thread Martin Buchholz

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:18:57 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов 
 wrote:

>> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
>> 
>> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
>> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
>> 
>> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
>> 
>> @State(Scope.Thread)
>> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
>> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
>> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>>   int size;
>> 
>>   private List list;
>> 
>>   @Setup
>>   public void prepare() {
>> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>>   }
>> 
>>   @Benchmark
>>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
>> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> before
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
>> 1.854   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
>> 3.784   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
>> 17.919   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> 
>> after
>> 
>> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
>> Error   Units
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
>> 0.065   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
>> 0.570   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴
>>  B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
>> 2.476   ns/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001  MB/sec
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
>> 0.001B/op
>> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0
>>counts
>
> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains four commits:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into ncopies
>  - 8274715: Add NCopiesBenchmarks.java
>  - 8274715: Revert some irrelevant changes
>  - 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

Thanks - TIL about Blackhole::consume .

All Java source files should end with exactly one newline.  Configure your 
editor to make it so.

-

Changes requested by martin (Reviewer).

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

2021-10-05 Thread Сергей Цыпанов

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:51:27 GMT, Martin Buchholz  wrote:

>> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional 
>> commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into ncopies
>>  - 8274715: Add NCopiesBenchmarks.java
>>  - 8274715: Revert some irrelevant changes
>>  - 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList
>
> Core collection classes should have optimized versions of forEach, so this is 
> a good change in principle.  Although CopiesList.forEach is unlikely to be 
> performance critical.
> 
> I implemented many similar optimizations for core collection classes in past 
> years.
> Many of them are benchmarked in 
> test/jdk/java/util/Collection/IteratorMicroBenchmark.java
> That was written pre-JMH.
> I see a JMH benchmark was written, but it is not part of the commit.
> 
> There are a number of unrelated changes in this commit that look like they 
> were suggested by a lint-like tool.  Such changes are good, but they belong 
> in a separate cleanup commit applied across large portions of the jdk sources.
> 
> I would not use "var" here - more readable with concrete types.
> 
> Similarly, I prefer not using diamond for
> return new Enumeration() {

@Martin-Buchholz thanks for review! I've reverted irrelevant changes and added 
the benchmark.

-

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

2021-10-05 Thread Сергей Цыпанов

> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
> 
> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
> 
> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
> 
> @State(Scope.Thread)
> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>   int size;
> 
>   private List list;
> 
>   @Setup
>   public void prepare() {
> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>   }
> 
>   @Benchmark
>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>   }
> }
> 
> 
> 
> before
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
> 1.854   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
> 3.784   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
> 17.919   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> 
> after
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
> 0.065   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
> 0.570   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
> 2.476   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts

Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional 
commits since the last revision:

 - Merge branch 'master' into ncopies
 - 8274715: Add NCopiesBenchmarks.java
 - 8274715: Revert some irrelevant changes
 - 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

-

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524/files/2303aa72..18f5d589

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=2524=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=2524=00-01

  Stats: 1563723 lines in 16632 files changed: 815442 ins; 677273 del; 71008 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2524/head:pull/2524

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

2021-10-04 Thread Martin Buchholz

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:28:49 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов 
 wrote:

> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
> 
> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
> 
> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
> 
> @State(Scope.Thread)
> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>   int size;
> 
>   private List list;
> 
>   @Setup
>   public void prepare() {
> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>   }
> 
>   @Benchmark
>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>   }
> }
> 
> 
> 
> before
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
> 1.854   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
> 3.784   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
> 17.919   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> 
> after
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
> 0.065   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
> 0.570   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
> 2.476   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts

Core collection classes should have optimized versions of forEach, so this is a 
good change in principle.  Although CopiesList.forEach is unlikely to be 
performance critical.

I implemented many similar optimizations for core collection classes in past 
years.
Many of them are benchmarked in 
test/jdk/java/util/Collection/IteratorMicroBenchmark.java
That was written pre-JMH.
I see a JMH benchmark was written, but it is not part of the commit.

There are a number of unrelated changes in this commit that look like they were 
suggested by a lint-like tool.  Such changes are good, but they belong in a 
separate cleanup commit applied across large portions of the jdk sources.

I would not use "var" here - more readable with concrete types.

Similarly, I prefer not using diamond for
return new Enumeration() {

-

Changes requested by martin (Reviewer).

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

2021-10-04 Thread liach

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:28:49 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов 
 wrote:

> Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html
> 
> Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of 
> `Iterable.forEach()` which is relying on iterator.
> 
> Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:
> 
> @State(Scope.Thread)
> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
> public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
>   @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
>   int size;
> 
>   private List list;
> 
>   @Setup
>   public void prepare() {
> list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
>   }
> 
>   @Benchmark
>   public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
> list.forEach(bh::consume);
>   }
> }
> 
> 
> 
> before
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
> 1.854   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
> 3.784   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
> 17.919   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> 
> after
> 
> Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
> Error   Units
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
> 0.065   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
> 0.570   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴ 
> B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
> 2.476   ns/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001  MB/sec
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
> 0.001B/op
> NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0 
>   counts

Marked as reviewed by li...@github.com (no known OpenJDK username).

-

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

2021-10-04 Thread Сергей Цыпанов

Originally was proposed by Zheka Kozlov here: 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-December/057192.html

Just a tiny optimization: we can use for-i loop instead of `Iterable.forEach()` 
which is relying on iterator.

Simple benchmark demonstrates slight improvement:

@State(Scope.Thread)
@BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
public class NCopiesBenchmarks {
  @Param({"10", "50", "100"})
  int size;

  private List list;

  @Setup
  public void prepare() {
list = Collections.nCopies(size, new Object());
  }

  @Benchmark
  public void forEach(Blackhole bh) {
list.forEach(bh::consume);
  }
}



before

Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
Error   Units
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   40.737 ±  
1.854   ns/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001  MB/sec
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴   
  B/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0   
counts
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  213.324 ±  
3.784   ns/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001  MB/sec
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻³   
  B/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0   
counts
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  443.171 ± 
17.919   ns/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001  MB/sec
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001B/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0   
counts

after

Benchmark  (size)  Mode  CntScore
Error   Units
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  10  avgt   50   36.838 ±  
0.065   ns/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   10  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001  MB/sec
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  10  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴   
  B/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count10  avgt   50  ≈ 0   
counts
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach  50  avgt   50  191.173 ±  
0.570   ns/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate   50  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001  MB/sec
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  50  avgt   50   ≈ 10⁻⁴   
  B/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count50  avgt   50  ≈ 0   
counts
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach 100  avgt   50  376.675 ±  
2.476   ns/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate  100  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001  MB/sec
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.alloc.rate.norm 100  avgt   500.001 ±  
0.001B/op
NCopiesBenchmarks.forEach:·gc.count   100  avgt   50  ≈ 0   
counts

-

Commit messages:
 - Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524/files
 Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=2524=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274715
  Stats: 15 lines in 1 file changed: 10 ins; 2 del; 3 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2524/head:pull/2524

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2524

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v3]

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v3]

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v3]

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList [v2]

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

Re: RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

RFR: 8274715: Implement forEach in Collections.CopiesList

10 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information