Another paper on invokedynamic
oehrstroem at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 07:27:33 PDT 2010
Interesting paper. It is good to have a test to verify that
Direct MethodHandles installed into the CallSites should
have (almost) identical performance as the original code.
Obviously we are not quite there yet.
I do think it is any use in making super() link very late.
It would only make sense if you could change the
inheritance hierarchy very late, which you can't.
2010/9/27 Chanwit Kaewkasi <chanwit at gmail.com>
> Dear all,
> This is another paper on invokedynamic (second to John Rose's :)) to
> be appeared in VMIL '10:
> This paper presents a study of a Java Virtual Machine prototype
> from the Da Vinci Machine project, defined by JSR 292. It
> describes binary translation techniques to prepare benchmarks to
> run on the invokedynamic mode of the prototype, resulting
> in the invokedynamic version of the SciMark 2.0 suite.
> Benchmark preparation techniques presented in this paper are
> proven to be useful as the invokedynamic version of
> benchmark programs successfully identified strange slowness
> behavior of the invokedynamic mode of the server virtual
> Surprisingly, benchmarking results show that the invoke-
> dynamic mode with direct method handles on the server
> virtual machine is just 2-5 times slower than native Java
> invocations, except the Monte Carlo benchmark. But this mode
> on the client virtual machine still requires further performance
> I hope you find it useful somehow and any feedback is very welcome!
> Best regards,
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mlvm-dev