Hi Ralph,
I've pushed my benchmark to a branch, it's not in a state that I'd be
comfortable merging to master.
I had to copy implementations into the benchmark because the java 9
version overshadows the default.
Commit is here:
Carter,
Did you check in this benchmark? I posted these numbers on Jigsaw-dev and they
would like to see the benchmark.
Ralph
> On Aug 7, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> My guess is that StackWalker provides additional information beyond
> the array of classes
> supplied by the
> I started looking into it but got sidetracked
No worries, I've had more time than usual this week to work on side
projects. Please don't feel obligated to respond quickly.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Looking at your latest commit, your number looks similar to mine.
>
Looking at your latest commit, your number looks similar to mine.
Ralph
> On Aug 9, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> No, I haven’t committed it. I started looking into it but got sidetracked
> with having to earn a living.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Aug 9, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Carter Kozak
No, I haven’t committed it. I started looking into it but got sidetracked with
having to earn a living.
Ralph
> On Aug 9, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> I've pushed the benchmark here:
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/209
>
> Is the extended stack trace benchmark
I created a micro benchmark for the extended stack trace. It isn’t pretty.
Ralph
> On Aug 9, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> That's true, as long as we collect the stack trace when the
> ThrowableProxy is created, the rest can be deferred. I can take a look
> at this.
>
> I'm
That's true, as long as we collect the stack trace when the
ThrowableProxy is created, the rest can be deferred. I can take a look
at this.
I'm working on a benchmark with a larger stack to simulate conditions
in a real application as well.
-ck
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Ralph Goers
What I don’t understand is that ThrowableProxy seems to be doing a whole bunch
of stuff in the constructor. I would think a lot of that could be deferred
until the Throwable is being rendered.
Ralph
> On Aug 9, 2018, at 8:10 AM, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> The piece I'd like to avoid is
The piece I'd like to avoid is ThrowableProxy.loadClass invocations,
which can be expensive depending on the ClassLoader implementation.
The ThrowablePatternConverter implementations all fall back to the
default implementation which operates directly on a Throwable rather
than the proxy object.
I
What is the purpose of disabling ThrowableProxy? All the throwable pattern
converters rely on it.
Ralph
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:34 AM, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> I'm curious what you would think of a system property to disable
> ThrowableProxy creation?
> My initial preference was to avoid this
Yup. Part of the problem is that StackWalker is optimized for only walking a
few frames. I think it caches 8 stack frames. After that it apparently slows
down a lot. I don’t recall there being any way to tune that.
Ralph
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:07 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> What I remember
What I remember from email interactions that Ralph had with the people working
on the Stackwalker implementation:
Ostensibly Stackwalker was supposed to give performance benefits for use cases
like ours. They even mentioned discovering the location of a logging call as
one of the main use
StackWalker seems to be implemented purely as it says: walking the call
stack. If all you need is the stack of classes (e.g., for checking runtime
permissions based on the calling class), then the SecurityManager makes
most sense since it seems built for that exact purpose. I'd imagine there
are
My guess is that StackWalker provides additional information beyond
the array of classes
supplied by the SecurityManager, though I've not done a thorough analysis yet.
A quick targeted benchmark of our current implementations:
Benchmark Mode Cnt
I have to wonder why using the security manager is faster than using
StackWalker. StackWalker was created just for this purpose. Is the way it is
implemented the problem?
Ralph
> On Aug 7, 2018, at 1:34 PM, cakofony wrote:
>
> GitHub user cakofony opened a pull request:
>
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
