On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 12/29/06, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've checked Weldon's finalization scheme and two existing schemes on
Weldon's test in mode 1 and 2.
On my Machine WinXP HT Pentium 4 I've got following results.
Weldon's design (on my machine 2 threads with highest priority).
Mode 1: 1/50 (main loop/finalizer call)
Mode 2: 1/50 (main loop/finalizer call)
This looks good to me. Its close enough for the current state of
drlvm. In
other words, don't try to precisely replicate the performance
numbers I
collected from Sun 1.5.0.
Multithreading java scheme (old DRLVM scheme)
Mode 1: 1/1 (main loop/finalizer call)
Mode 2 1/250 (main loop/finalizer call)
One native thread with highest priority (like new GC v5 scheme)
Mode 1: 1/1 (main loop/finalizer call)
Mode 2: 1/1 (main loop/finalizer call)
Its unclear if you actually ran GCv5 finalizer code or something
"like new
GC v5 scheme". I don't know what the data means.
From Weldon's data SUN 1.5.0 JVM has:
Mode 1: 1/50 (main loop/finalizer call) (may be 1/90)
Mode 2: 1/173 (main loop/finalizer call) (15 / 2600 =
1/173)
As I understand the ideal finalization scheme should provide:
Mode 1: 1/1 (main loop/finalizer call)
Mode 2: 0/1 (main loop/finalizer call)
The point is that the "ideal finalization" design needs to be
driven by what
important commercial workloads require.
I'd be stunned if there were any important commercial workloads that
used finalizers. (Nothing from SPEC is a commercial workload...)
It will be a while before these
workloads run fast and stable on drlvm. In other words, drlvm is
not yet
ready for investigating the final finalization scheme.
I don't agree with that conclusion, as I don't think that they are
connected concepts.
Incidentally, the
data collected on Sun 1.5.0 contradicts the "ideal finalization
scheme"
suggested above. Given a choice, I would rather do something
similar to a
commercial JVM implementation at this point in time.
Me too
geir
