Plus, as you may have noticed, poor API design choices in the JDK live forever because they never remove deprecated code. ;)
On 12 May 2016 at 07:55, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, OK, that makes sense. > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Yes. Right now we have a chance to get a fix if one is required. >> >> Ralph >> >> On May 12, 2016, at 12:58 AM, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Do we really have to worry so much about this now since Java 9 won't be >> released until 10 months or so? >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I need to test it. Walking the Throwable is much slower in Java 9. They >>> suggest using the StackWalker API, but walking it from the bottom as we do >>> isn’t very efficient. Instead, they recommend doing >>> >>> walker.walk(s -> s.skip(2).findFirst()); >>> >>> from the class called by the caller (i.e. - AbstractLogger). Supposedly >>> this is much more efficient. However, it needs to be tested to determine >>> how much overhead it actually incurs. If it is minimal then we could >>> consider just doing it on every call. If not then we need to see if the >>> StackWalker API is on par with walking the throwable. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> On May 11, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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]> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> [image: MagineTV] >> >> *Mikael Ståldal* >> Senior software developer >> >> *Magine TV* >> [email protected] >> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >> >> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >> email. >> >> > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior software developer > > *Magine TV* > [email protected] > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > email. > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
