Hi,
On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 17:19 +, Ian Rogers wrote:
> Thanks Paul, very interesting.
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:21 AM Paul Sandoz
> wrote:
> > Hi Ian, Thomas,
> >
> > [...]
> > (This is also something we need to consider if we modify buffers to
> > support
Hi Ian, Thomas,
Some background on the bulk copying for byte buffers after talking with Mikael
who worked on these changes a few years ago.
Please correct the following if needed as our memory is hazy :-)
IIRC at the time we felt this was a reasonable thing to do because C2 did not
strip mine
Hi,
On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 01:00 +, Ian Rogers wrote:
> An old data point on how large a critical region should be comes from
> java.nio.Bits. In JDK 9 the code migrated into unsafe, but in JDK 8
> the copies within a critical region were bound at most copying 1MB:
>
Thanks Ian and Sherman for the excellent presentation and memories of
ancient efforts.
Yes, Sherman, I still have vague memory that attempts to touch any
implementation detail in this area was asking for trouble and someone would
complain. I was happy to let you deal with those problems!
On 3/5/18, 12:45 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
On 3/5/18, 11:15 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
Thanks! Changing the DeflaterOutputStream buffer size to be something
other than the default reduces the number of JNI native calls and is
a possible work around here, as this is an implementation detail
could it
On 3/5/18, 11:15 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
Thanks! Changing the DeflaterOutputStream buffer size to be something
other than the default reduces the number of JNI native calls and is a
possible work around here, as this is an implementation detail could
it be made in the JDK? Unfortunately larger
On 03/05/2018 10:28 AM, Xueming Shen wrote:
On 03/05/2018 08:34 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
Firstly, we're not running -Xcheck:jni in production code :-) During
development and testing it doesn't seem an unreasonable flag to enable, but
a 140x regression is too much to get developers to swallow.
On 03/05/2018 08:34 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
Firstly, we're not running -Xcheck:jni in production code :-) During
development and testing it doesn't seem an unreasonable flag to enable, but
a 140x regression is too much to get developers to swallow.
There are 2 performance considerations:
1) the
On 05/03/2018 06:33, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Ian,
Do you run with -Xcheck:jni in production mode because you load
unknown native code libraries? It's mainly intended as a diagnostic
option to turn on if you encounter a possible JNI problem.
It does unusual to be running with -Xcheck:jni in
Hi Ian,
Do you run with -Xcheck:jni in production mode because you load unknown
native code libraries? It's mainly intended as a diagnostic option to
turn on if you encounter a possible JNI problem.
I'll leave the debate on your actual patch proposal to others more
familiar with the
10 matches
Mail list logo