On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, 11:27 AM Christian Beikov
wrote:
> I'm moving this discussion from Zulip to the mailing list as Rafael does
> not seem to be on Zulip.
Try to ping him on Twitter then with a link to this email thread. Ask him
what your options are to improve proxy generation performance.
> Does anyone know if there is a known performance issue [...]
I'm aware that loading Byte Buddy takes a little longer than Javassist
to initialize: it's a larger library and it needs to load a
significantly larger number of classes, including ASM, but this comes
with several benefits so as long
If you can get some SVG profiles from Async Profiler, that would help to
determine what we can do to improve things.
And yes, we don't want the BB state to be static again. We had a hard time
avoiding the static here and I don't remember exactly why but it was for
sure worth it or I wouldn't have
> @Yoann: It seems the commit you posted is about supporting a
> SecurityManager environment, but I'm not sure how making the state an
> instance variable rather than static helps with this. What kind of
> buggyness are you referring to?
Not sure what the bug was; I just remember there was a
Hey,
sorry for the confusion. "Apparently" was the wrong word I guess, my
colleague Moritz Becker ran a few CPU sampling rounds with JFR which is
how we found out about this, so this is more like "the data suggests"
that the problem is in ByteBuddy.
I can do some profiling with the
Hi Christian,
I don't like "apparently" when talking about performances :).
I would advise to use async profiler (
https://github.com/jvm-profiling-tools/async-profiler, also see
https://github.com/quarkusio/quarkus/blob/master/TROUBLESHOOTING.md to
learn more on how to use it) to try to
I have just one comment:
> I haven't tried it yet, but it seems to me that making the
> byteBuddyState in
> org.hibernate.bytecode.internal.bytebuddy.BytecodeProviderImpl static
> might help. I'd guess this will help with the test execution time for
> the Hibernate testsuite as well.
Please
I'm moving this discussion from Zulip to the mailing list as Rafael does
not seem to be on Zulip. Here a little context:
> Does anyone know if there is a known performance issue with Bytebuddy
during boot in 5.4? I noticed that 5.4 takes about 25%, sometimes up to
30% percent longer to boot,
