Hi Andrew,
That does seem more straightforward.
The name ALWAYSCOMPACTABLE doesn't really match the rest of the
nomenclature used in the compact string code.
Can you change the name to LATIN1COMPATIBLE?
Its similar to the ASCIICOMPATIBLE case and tied in to the Latin1 coding
for used
in StringCoding.
I hope another Reviewer will take a look also.
Thanks, Roger
On 10/4/19 9:05 AM, Andrew Leonard wrote:
Hi Roger,
So based on your suggestion i've removed the logic from the
constructor and it's now pre-determined by the charset generator
tooling, just like isASCIICompatible is... It works really nicely, so
there is now no impact on the constructor. I have verified this using
the StrCodingBenchmark test. I have also integrated the new method
into ArrayDecoder as you said, which makes it neater.
Please review the new webrev here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aleonard/8231717/webrev.01/
Many thanks
Andrew
Andrew Leonard
Java Runtimes Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
From: Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Leonard <andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Date: 02/10/2019 19:27
Subject: Re: RFR: 8231717: Improve performance of EBCDIC charset
decoding for COMPACT_STRINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Andrew,
On 10/2/19 12:54 PM, Andrew Leonard wrote:
Hi Roger,
Thank you for the feedback.
So your point about constructor performance is a good one, in my
performance tests in which I have run both the StrCodingBenchmark.java
test and also some simple standalone tests, I did not see any
noticeable degradation for charsets that are not alwaysCompactable(),
but I will look closer at that one. It has made me think though that I
can do the isAlwaysCompactable determination at static init time,
since the table is obviously static...I will investigate that
optimization.
The change is actually not just EBCDIC, as I point out in the bug it's
any SingleByte charset that is determined as "alwaysCompactable", I
specified EBCDIC in the bug title as it is actually just about only
the EBCDIC charsets that fall into this category. I can rename the
"title" maybe?
So I think the name should be closer to everything that can be
decoded/mapped to Latin1 or 8-bit clean.
The "negatives" check for isASCIICompatible is done only on the input
bytes when the given charset "isASCIICompatible" as you said. This
change is not related to hasNegatives() so not sure I quite understand
the point about moving it? hasNegatives() is relavent to the input
byte[] being decoded as if it contains negatives it will need complete
mapping even for an isASCIICompatible charset.
ok
isAlwaysCompactable is about the charset in general, and can (and I
think should) be computed at static init time, as it's simply
determined by the fact that the static b2c[] table maps only to values
0->0xff.
EBCDIC codepages are not ASCIICompatible as they don't map directly,
so you cannot combine the two, they are independent scenario fastpaths.
rigth, there is a mapping needed.
If I add a default impl for decodeToLatin1() I could add the methods
to ArrayDecoder, I will look at that. I think I did it that way as I
didn't want to affect anyone that may have implemented ArrayDecoder
separately...
I was also thinking of ISO_8859_1, that doesn't need a mapping,
and trying to avoid a multiple separate decisions and data paths.
(while keeping the code simple)
Thanks, Roger
Thanks for the review, I will look at the static init of
alwaysCompactable, and move the methods to ArrayDecoder, and do a
closer check on constructor performance at the end of that.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Leonard
Java Runtimes Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
internet email: _andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com_
<mailto:andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com>
From: Roger Riggs _<roger.ri...@oracle.com>_
<mailto:roger.ri...@oracle.com>
To: _core-libs-...@openjdk.java.net_
<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Date: 02/10/2019 14:52
Subject: Re: RFR: 8231717: Improve performance of EBCDIC charset
decoding for COMPACT_STRINGS
Sent by: "core-libs-dev" _<core-libs-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net>_
<mailto:core-libs-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Andrew,
This would seem to have an impact on the performance of every Decoder
constructor
because it determines dynamically the isAlwaysCompactable attribute.
Are there regressions in the non-EBCDIC cases?
Did your performance tests include the constructor overhead?
The isASCIICompatible case is handled by checking for negatives only
when needed.
Unless the information is used more than once it looks like you've moved
the computation
from StringCoding hasNegatives to the Decoder constructor.
Is there a change that would benefit both the isASCIICompatible case and
EBCDIC?
Is there a reason you didn't add the isAlwaysCompactable method to the
existing ArrayDecoder interface.
I don't think there there is a need for a new interface.
Thanks, Roger
On 10/2/19 4:10 AM, Andrew Leonard wrote:
> Hi,
> Please can I request a review of this performance enhancement for EBCDIC
> (and any SingleByte, always compactable) charsets? I've explained the
> theory in the bug
(_https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8231717_), but
> essentially it optimizes any SingleByte charset that is always
compactable
> due to all mappings being to <=0xff and avoids unnecessary char[] to
> internal Latin1 byte[] arraycopy as a result. This leads to up to a 100%
> performance gain for decoding these charsets.
> I have run the complete tier1 and also the complete sun/nio/cs testcases
> successfully.
>
> Webrev: _http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aleonard/8231717/webrev.00/_
>
> Thoughts and comments welcome please?
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
> Andrew Leonard
> Java Runtimes Development
> IBM Hursley
> IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> internet email: _andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com_
<mailto:andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6 3AU
>
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
