On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Lukas Stadler <lukas.stad...@jku.at> wrote: > Hm, maybe... the fix was really just a tiny tiny bugfix, so that > shouldn't have caused any performance regressions, although, of course, > I can't say for sure. > But maybe something in invokedynamic has changed so that it's impacted > by coro? I can reproduce it and I'll have to look into this.
I have not looked at compiler logs for indy at all...if you don't suspect that indy is interfering with coro, then perhaps the execution pattern is preventing indy from optimizing as well as it should. > Has your usage of invokedynamic changed a lot since the last "perfect" > performance numbers with invokedynamic? The numbers on your blog would not have been using invokedynamic at all. What other numbers are you referring to? JRuby is using invokedynamic more and more, but we're not doing anything *unusual*. - Charlie _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
