RFR (L): 8024468: PPC64 (part 201): cppInterpreter: implement bytecode profiling
coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
Mon Sep 16 05:49:06 PDT 2013
Yes, that does look better. Thanks!
On 9/15/2013 5:19 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> Hi Coleen,
> thanks for the hint, I adapted the webrev.
> Looks better like that.
> Best regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hotspot-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:hotspot-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Coleen Phillmore
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 4:13 PM
> To: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR (L): 8024468: PPC64 (part 201): cppInterpreter: implement bytecode profiling
> This isn't a full review but can you refactor
> InterpreterRuntime::note_trap() so that there isn't duplicated code?
> It doesn't seem like there are enough differences for a separate function.
> On 9/15/2013 9:58 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>> this change implements bytecode profiling for the cppInterpreter.
>> It changes a row of shared files, but most of the changes are
>> guarded by CC_INTERP. This is not mandatory, but I think it
>> makes clear what the extensions are meant for, and assures it's
>> not compiled into template interpreter builds.
>> We desinged the bytecode profiling for the cppInterpreter
>> to deliver exact the same counter values as the template interpreter does.
>> E.g., we extended the interpreter to also check backedge counts.
>> The macros used in the interpreter loop are placed in a new
>> file bytecodeInterpreterProfiling.hpp. I'm happy to move them
>> somewhere else.
>> The code is guarded with CC_INTERP_PROFILE, which is only enabled
>> if COMPILER2 is set. Thus, ZERO will not encounter any overhead
>> in the interpreter loop.
>> This change also enables all the new features we implemented in
>> the cppInterpreter, see arguments.cpp.
>> Although this change is marked as L, it should not have an effect
>> on non-cppInterpreter platforms.
>> Please review and test this change.
>> Best regards,
More information about the hotspot-dev