Hi Xuelei, On 5/24/19 5:17 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: > If I understand correctly, you run the test with the patch of webrev01? > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbalao/webrevs/8223482/8223482.webrev.01/ >
Yes, this is correct. > >> FIPS_without_8223482_webrev01.txt average: 358.42 ms >> NON_FIPS_without_8223482_webrev01.txt average: 771.34 ms >> > If I understand correctly, you run the test with the pacth of webrev00? > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbalao/webrevs/8223482/8223482.webrev.00/ No, this is not correct. "without_8223482" means no patch at all, just the base line JDK (at revision fb0cfce19262, 2019-05-23). In my opinion, it makes no sense to continue measuring Webrev.00 because it has a considerable impact as shown by previous benchmarks. > > From the above numbers, the FIPS_with_8223482_webrev01 is better than > FIPS_without_8223482_webrev01, but NON_FIPS_with_8223482_webrev01 is > worse than NON_FIPS_without_8223482_webrev01. It is a little bit > strange to me. Yes, looks strange that FIPS with patch is better than without patch. However, we need to consider that the difference is not a big one and the margin of error we have. If you ask me, I'd say they are roughly the same. > > Did you have the numbers for the latest JDK build, without any patch? As I said, "without" means the latest JDK without any patch. Kind regards, Martin.-
