Hi Laurent,
I have run your performance test on my machine (i7 CPU, Linux) and
with original code on JDK8 64bit (CompressedOOPS enabled by default,
no TLAB options), i get:
...
INFO: testPerf[100000000 iterations]: duration = 1767.6329779999999 ms.
INFO: testPerf[100000000 iterations]: duration = 1758.7931449999999 ms.
INFO: testPerf[100000000 iterations]: duration = 1763.386362 ms.
...
While with latest patch (webrev.07), the results are:
...
INFO: testPerf[100000000 iterations]: duration = 660.940466 ms.
INFO: testPerf[100000000 iterations]: duration = 662.4854379999999 ms.
INFO: testPerf[100000000 iterations]: duration = 656.497199 ms.
...
So it's apparently a 2.5x improvement in speed.
This test is designed to test the PlatformLogger.isLoggable() for
levels that don't result in log messages being actually written out,
but there are some caveats:
- the test is using a loop with local variables and counters, which is
very prone to JIT optimizations such as loop-unrolling. This might or
might not be happening and even if it is, the impact might be the same
on unpatched vs. patched PlatformLogger code.
- the test is testing the performance when the PlatformLogger is
directed to java.util.logging from the beginning. That means JIT is
compiling calls to virtual methods of JavaLoggerProxy into monomorphic
inlined calls. The results are different if the test is 1st warmed-up
while no java.util.logging is initialized yet (calls directed to
LoggerProxy) and later java.util.logging is enabled (PlatformLoggers
are redirected to JavaLoggerProxys) and the same test repeated.
I have created a special test that demonstrates this (all tests run on
recent JDK8 build, i7 (4 cores) Linux, 64bit, no TLAB option,
CompressedOOPS enabled by default):
** Original code
>> JVM START
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.78 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.78]
1 threads, Tavg = 1.67 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.67]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.44 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.44]
2 threads, Tavg = 1.37 ns/op (? = 0.01 ns/op) [
1.37, 1.38]
3 threads, Tavg = 1.53 ns/op (? = 0.13 ns/op) [
1.41, 1.49, 1.71]
4 threads, Tavg = 1.43 ns/op (? = 0.10 ns/op) [
1.36, 1.62, 1.39, 1.38]
<< JVM END
>> JVM START
>> java.util.logging enabled
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 4.81 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 4.81]
1 threads, Tavg = 4.79 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 4.79]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 4.67 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 4.67]
2 threads, Tavg = 4.67 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [
4.67, 4.67]
3 threads, Tavg = 4.87 ns/op (? = 0.31 ns/op) [
4.67, 4.68, 5.32]
4 threads, Tavg = 4.68 ns/op (? = 0.01 ns/op) [
4.68, 4.67, 4.68, 4.69]
<< JVM END
>> JVM START
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.39 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.39]
1 threads, Tavg = 1.80 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.80]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.38 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.38]
2 threads, Tavg = 1.38 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [
1.38, 1.38]
3 threads, Tavg = 1.38 ns/op (? = 0.01 ns/op) [
1.39, 1.38, 1.37]
4 threads, Tavg = 1.38 ns/op (? = 0.02 ns/op) [
1.42, 1.37, 1.37, 1.37]
>> java.util.logging enabled
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 11.87 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 11.87]
1 threads, Tavg = 9.08 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 9.08]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 9.12 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 9.12]
2 threads, Tavg = 9.02 ns/op (? = 0.02 ns/op) [
9.05, 9.00]
3 threads, Tavg = 9.20 ns/op (? = 0.04 ns/op) [
9.26, 9.19, 9.17]
4 threads, Tavg = 9.33 ns/op (? = 0.07 ns/op) [
9.44, 9.34, 9.26, 9.28]
<< JVM END
** Patched code (webrev.07)
>> JVM START
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.38 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.38]
1 threads, Tavg = 1.68 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.68]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.38 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.38]
2 threads, Tavg = 1.40 ns/op (? = 0.02 ns/op) [
1.37, 1.42]
3 threads, Tavg = 1.49 ns/op (? = 0.21 ns/op) [
1.80, 1.38, 1.36]
4 threads, Tavg = 1.50 ns/op (? = 0.13 ns/op) [
1.47, 1.73, 1.41, 1.42]
<< JVM END
>> JVM START
>> java.util.logging enabled
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.80 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.80]
1 threads, Tavg = 1.74 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.74]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.78 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.78]
2 threads, Tavg = 1.80 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [
1.80, 1.80]
3 threads, Tavg = 1.84 ns/op (? = 0.03 ns/op) [
1.80, 1.88, 1.86]
4 threads, Tavg = 1.78 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [
1.78, 1.77, 1.77, 1.78]
<< JVM END
>> JVM START
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.73 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.73]
1 threads, Tavg = 1.72 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.72]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 1.38 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 1.38]
2 threads, Tavg = 1.37 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [
1.37, 1.37]
3 threads, Tavg = 1.52 ns/op (? = 0.19 ns/op) [
1.37, 1.45, 1.79]
4 threads, Tavg = 1.58 ns/op (? = 0.19 ns/op) [
1.42, 1.79, 1.81, 1.41]
>> java.util.logging enabled
#
# isLoggableFinest: run duration: 5,000 ms, #of logical CPUS: 8
#
# Warm up:
1 threads, Tavg = 5.43 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 5.43]
1 threads, Tavg = 5.65 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 5.65]
# Measure:
1 threads, Tavg = 5.66 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [ 5.66]
2 threads, Tavg = 5.67 ns/op (? = 0.01 ns/op) [
5.68, 5.66]
3 threads, Tavg = 5.65 ns/op (? = 0.00 ns/op) [
5.65, 5.65, 5.65]
4 threads, Tavg = 5.66 ns/op (? = 0.01 ns/op) [
5.65, 5.65, 5.67, 5.67]
<< JVM END
It appears the speed-up is visible and varies from 1.6x to 2.6x,
depending on other factors that also play role in the overall speed
(like JIT optimizations).
I only presented the results for PlatformLogger.isLoggable(FINEST),
because this is the most sensitive call in tight loops. Other methods
perform similarly.
This is the test code I used:
package test;
import si.pele.microbench.TestRunner;
import sun.util.logging.PlatformLogger;
import java.util.logging.LogManager;
public class PlatformLoggerBenchmark extends TestRunner {
static final PlatformLogger log =
PlatformLogger.getLogger(PlatformLoggerBenchmark.class.getName());
static {
log.setLevel(PlatformLogger.SEVERE); // almost OFF
}
public static class isLoggableFinest extends Test {
@Override
protected void doLoop(Loop loop, DevNull devNull1, DevNull
devNull2, DevNull devNull3, DevNull devNull4, DevNull devNull5) {
while (loop.nextIteration()) {
devNull1.yield(log.isLoggable(PlatformLogger.FINEST));
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
System.out.println(">> JVM START");
doTest(isLoggableFinest.class, 5000L, 1, 4, 1);
// enable java.util.logging
LogManager.getLogManager().getLogger(log.getName());
System.out.println("\n>> java.util.logging enabled\n");
doTest(isLoggableFinest.class, 5000L, 1, 4, 1);
System.out.println("<< JVM END");
}
}
The test uses a simple microbenchmark runner that I coded together
using some ideas from the sessions with Alexey Shipilev and his
benchmark suite.
Here's the source to my dirty implementation:
https://github.com/plevart/micro-bench/tree/v2
Regards, Peter
On 03/22/2013 02:28 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Ok, Lauret, Mandy,
Here are the final touches:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101777488/jdk8-tl/PlatformLogger/webrev.07/index.html
Changes from webrev.06:
- renamed back Level -> LevelEnum
- renamed JavaLogger -> JavaLoggerProxy
- moved javaLevel(int) static method from LevelEnum to
JavaLoggerProxy and made it private (only used there)
- consistent use of variable name 'level' to refer to
PlatformLogger's int level value
- consistent use of variable name 'levelEnum' to refer to LevelEnum
member
- consistent use of variable name 'javaLevel' to refer to
java.util.logging.Level instance
- consistent use of variable name 'javaLogger' to refer to
java.util.logging.Logger instance
- renamed PlatformLogger.newJavaLogger() private method ->
PlatformLogger.redirectToJavaLoggerProxy()
- renamed PlatformLogger.logger private field ->
PlatformLogger.loggerProxy
- some additional comments
I think that these changes make code more consistent and
self-explanatory.
What remains is a possible rename from: javaLogger, javaLevel,
JavaLoggerProxy -> julLogger, julLevel, JulLoggerProxy if that's the
final decision.
Regards, Peter
On 03/22/2013 01:26 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/22/2013 11:34 AM, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
Peter,
You've beaten me! I have been preparing them too ;-) ...
Ok I definitely stop working on the code and let you do it.
Ok. I'll make the final touches, incorporating also comments and
changes from your code...
I also did some some renames, that I think make the code more
consistent:
- LevelEnum -> Level (the code is not dependent on
java.util.logging.Level, so the name can be reused, its private
anyway)
- julLevel -> javaLevel (javaLevel / JavaLogger)
- LevelEnum.forValue -> Level.valueOf (Mandy)
- JavaLogger.julLevelToEnum -> JavaLogger.javaLevelToLevel
For consistency and clarity, I would prefer having following
conventions:
- int levelValue (= PlatformLevel as int) and not int level
(conflict with Level enum ...)
I think that PlatformLogger public API should stay as is. Public
method's parameter names are just called 'level' and values of
public constants are expected to be passed to them. There are only
two places where 'level' is the name of a local variable of type
Level (and not int) and at both places there is not conflict, since
there's no 'int level' variable in scope.
I renamed LevelEnum to Level because the following most frequently
used pattern looks strange:
LevelEnum.javaLevel(int)
Neither parameter nor the result has anything to do with LevelEnum
directly.
But if we move the javaLevel(int) method out of the Level enum into
the JavaLogger, then Level can be renamed back to LevelEnum (or
anything else?).
- julLevel / julLogger: more explicit than javaLevel / javaLogger
(java means everything ... but jul means java.util.logging and
javaLogger is in conflict with JavaLogger class)
But javaLogger is not in conflict with javaLevel. I suggest renaming
JavaLoger class to JavaLoggerProxy, so we would have:
Object javaLogger // holding java.util.logging.Logger instance
Object javaLevel // holding java.util.logging.Level instance
class JavaLoggerProxy // a specialization of LoggerProxy,
delegating to javaLogger
If 'jul' is a prefered prefix to 'java', I suggest renaming all 3:
julLogger, julLevel, JulLoggerProxy. I don't have a preference for
either, so perhaps Mandy, Laurent or anybody else can express them...
Regards, Peter
Other changes (to webrev.05):
- removed the occurrence counts in switch comments (as per
Mandy's suggestion)
- made LoggerProxy and JavaLogger private
- fixed double-read of volatile LoggerProxy.levelValue in
LoggerProxy.isLoggable()
- added static Level.javaLevel(int value) shortcut (Mandy)
I also updated the test to exercise the correctness of mappings.
Well done.
cheers,
Laurent
