Oh, that's new to me. That doesn't sound good... Why is this necessary? Sent from my iPhone
> On 2016/05/12, at 8:43, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would be different. We would be getting the location info in > AbstractLogger in every API method. You wouldn't be able to delay it until it > is requested/required. > > Ralph > >> On May 11, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The current way to get location information is not garbage-free either, so >> this is not a problem. >> >> Have you tried benchmarking this? I'm very curious! >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 2016/05/12, at 2:06, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> For those you not following the OpenJDK mailing list, Mandy is recommending >>> we do >>> >>> walker.walk(s -> s.skip(2).findFirst()); >>> >>> in every logger method to capture the stack frame information. We might >>> have to call it twice to get the Class as well. This will probably break >>> the garbage free tests and it might incur more overhead then is acceptable. >>> We will have to do some testing to find out. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 10, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We don’t use that for getting the caller location. We only use the >>>> throwable. You are thinking of the code that needs to get the caller’s >>>> Class object. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>>> On May 10, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> JDK 9 should be blocking the sun.reflect classes which means we fall back >>>>> to SecurityManager or Throwable depending on the method. >>>>> >>>>> On 10 May 2016 at 11:51, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> I just responded to that thread with the results below. I was hoping we >>>>>> wouldn’t need to use the StackWalker API. Now I am wondering if it is >>>>>> any faster. My initial tests showed it was much faster than using the >>>>>> Throwable, but that doesn’t mean much if that is now slower. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 10, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. On the openjdk list Mandy said that walking the Throwable as we are >>>>>>> doing should be faster due to improvements made in JDK-8150778. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 10, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are you using the new JDK 9 APIs to walk the stack? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Ralph Goers >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Supposedly Java 9 was supposed to improve the performance of walking >>>>>>>>> the stack trace. However, the numbers I get below indicate to me that >>>>>>>>> they are moving in the opposite direction. Am I misreading this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> java version "1.7.0_80 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Benchmark >>>>>>>>> Mode Samples Score Error Units >>>>>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2LocationBenchmark.throughputSimple >>>>>>>>> thrpt 20 124819.285 ± 3003.918 ops/s >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> java version "1.8.0_65" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Benchmark >>>>>>>>> Mode Samples Score Error Units >>>>>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2LocationBenchmark.throughputSimple >>>>>>>>> thrpt 20 123209.746 ± 3064.672 ops/s >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> java version "9-ea" >>>>>>>>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 9-ea+116) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Benchmark >>>>>>>>> Mode Samples Score Error Units >>>>>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2LocationBenchmark.throughputSimple >>>>>>>>> thrpt 20 96090.261 ± 4565.763 ops/s >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>
