lukas.stadler at jku.at
Wed Nov 30 02:37:20 PST 2011
On 2011-11-30 11:20, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Lukas Stadler<lukas.stadler at jku.at> wrote:
>> Hm, maybe... the fix was really just a tiny tiny bugfix, so that
>> shouldn't have caused any performance regressions, although, of course,
>> I can't say for sure.
>> But maybe something in invokedynamic has changed so that it's impacted
>> by coro? I can reproduce it and I'll have to look into this.
> I have not looked at compiler logs for indy at all...if you don't
> suspect that indy is interfering with coro, then perhaps the execution
> pattern is preventing indy from optimizing as well as it should.
Exactly. It's still a bug in the coro patch, since it shouldn't impact
performance that way.
>> Has your usage of invokedynamic changed a lot since the last "perfect"
>> performance numbers with invokedynamic?
> The numbers on your blog would not have been using invokedynamic at
> all. What other numbers are you referring to?
> JRuby is using invokedynamic more and more, but we're not doing
> anything *unusual*.
I thought that maybe you were refering to a measurement with indy that
showed the better numbers.
But I guess it wouldn't have been a sudden decline in performance
anyway, since it's probably not one specific use of indy that exposes
the coro performance regression, but all of them together.
More information about the mlvm-dev