Yes, this is the version I wanted to see (i.e. where the only diff is
varargs, and not any anything else like array iteration, etc). Why did
fillCopyLoop() get some much worse than in your prior email though?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, if I add the following variant to the mix:
>
> private static void fillWith8Arguments(Object[] a, int pos, Object...
> args) {
> a[pos] = args[0];
> a[pos + 1] = args[1];
> a[pos + 2] = args[2];
> a[pos + 3] = args[3];
> a[pos + 4] = args[4];
> a[pos + 5] = args[5];
> a[pos + 6] = args[6];
> a[pos + 7] = args[7];
> }
>
> private static Object[] fillArrayByHand(
> Integer pos, Object[] a,
> Object a0, Object a1, Object a2, Object a3,
> Object a4, Object a5, Object a6, Object a7
> ) {
> fillWith8Arguments(a, pos, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7);
> return a;
> }
>
> @Benchmark
> public Object[] fillByHand() {
> return fillArrayByHand(0, target, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7);
> }
>
> The results:
>
> Benchmark Mode Samples Score Score
> error Units
> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillArray thrpt 8 75994667.408
> 4169836.951 ops/s
> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillArrayAlt thrpt 8 142761145.565
> 7127589.095 ops/s
> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillByHand thrpt 8 141206898.861
> 6435932.932 ops/s
> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillCopyLoop thrpt 8 82395900.795
> 2794747.540 ops/s
>
>
> ...show that with fillByHand, varargs array is indeed eliminated. But then
> the "helper" method is not of any help, since it's not reusable for
> different array lengths...
>
>
> Regards, Peter
>
>
> On 10/02/2014 08:54 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
>
>
> On 10/02/2014 08:42 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>
> AFIK, varargs (up to something like 64 args) should be eliminated by EA.
> Peter, can you add another jmh test that uses varargs but doesn't call into
> System.arraycopy but uses the hand rolled version like your at method? I'm
> wondering if that makes EA not kick in.
>
>
> Hm, here is a modified benchmark (I also eliminated repeatable allocation
> of target array):
>
>
> @State(Scope.Benchmark)
> public class FillArrayTest {
>
> private Object
> a0 = new Object(),
> a1 = new Object(),
> a2 = new Object(),
> a3 = new Object(),
> a4 = new Object(),
> a5 = new Object(),
> a6 = new Object(),
> a7 = new Object();
>
>
> private Object[] target = new Object[8];
>
> private static void fillWithArguments(Object[] a, int pos, Object...
> args) {
> System.arraycopy(args, 0, a, pos, args.length);
> }
>
> private static Object[] fillArray(
> Integer pos, Object[] a,
> Object a0, Object a1, Object a2, Object a3,
> Object a4, Object a5, Object a6, Object a7
> ) {
> fillWithArguments(a, pos, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7);
> return a;
> }
>
> private static void fillWithArgumentsCopyLoop(Object[] a, int pos,
> Object... args) {
> for (int i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
> a[i + pos] = args[i];
> }
> }
>
> private static Object[] fillArrayCopyLoop(
> Integer pos, Object[] a,
> Object a0, Object a1, Object a2, Object a3,
> Object a4, Object a5, Object a6, Object a7
> ) {
> fillWithArgumentsCopyLoop(a, pos, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7);
> return a;
> }
>
> private static Object[] fillArrayAlt(
> Integer pos, Object[] a,
> Object a0, Object a1, Object a2, Object a3,
> Object a4, Object a5, Object a6, Object a7
> ) {
> int i = pos;
> a[i++] = a0;
> a[i++] = a1;
> a[i++] = a2;
> a[i++] = a3;
> a[i++] = a4;
> a[i++] = a5;
> a[i++] = a6;
> a[i++] = a7;
> return a;
> }
>
> @Benchmark
> public Object[] fillArray() {
> return fillArray(0, target, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7);
> }
>
> @Benchmark
> public Object[] fillCopyLoop() {
> return fillArrayCopyLoop(0, target, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6,
> a7);
> }
>
> @Benchmark
> public Object[] fillArrayAlt() {
> return fillArrayAlt(0, target, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7);
> }
> }
>
>
>
> The results:
>
>
> Benchmark Mode Samples Score Score
> error Units
> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillArray thrpt 8 76534019.978
> 3063590.310 ops/s
> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillArrayAlt thrpt 8 141640280.270
> 7815152.038 ops/s
> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillCopyLoop thrpt 8 82050640.406
> 4055652.247 ops/s
>
>
> The fillCopyLoop seems a little faster. I don't know if this is because of
> possible elimination of allocation. The fillArrayAlt is still almost 2x as
> fast.
>
> Peter
>
> Sent from my phone
> On Oct 2, 2014 2:34 PM, "Peter Levart" <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/02/2014 06:55 PM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>>
>>> Small update:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8058892/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> Need to reorder initialization sequence in MHI.Lazy. Initialized
>>> FILL_ARRAYS and ARRAYS are required for later MH lookups.
>>>
>>> Additional testing:
>>> * jck (api/java_lang/invoke)
>>> * jdk/java/lang/invoke, jdk/java/util/streams w/ "-ea -esa" and
>>> COMPILE_THRESHOLD={0,30}
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vladimir Ivanov
>>>
>>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> I have a comment that does not directly pertain to the code changes (the
>> initialization of arrays) but to the sub-optimal implementation of
>> "fillArray" methods I noticed by the way. While it is nice to use varargs
>> "makeArray" helper method with "array" methods to construct the array, the
>> same strategy used with "fillWithArguments" in "fillArray" methods makes a
>> redundant array that is then copied to target array and discarded. The
>> redundant copying has a price. Here's a benchmark (Aleksey, please bear
>> with me):
>>
>> @State(Scope.Benchmark)
>> public class FillArrayTest {
>>
>> private Object
>> a0 = new Object(),
>> a1 = new Object(),
>> a2 = new Object(),
>> a3 = new Object(),
>> a4 = new Object(),
>> a5 = new Object(),
>> a6 = new Object(),
>> a7 = new Object();
>>
>>
>> private static void fillWithArguments(Object[] a, int pos, Object...
>> args) {
>> System.arraycopy(args, 0, a, pos, args.length);
>> }
>>
>> private static Object[] fillArray(
>> Integer pos, Object[] a,
>> Object a0, Object a1, Object a2, Object a3,
>> Object a4, Object a5, Object a6, Object a7
>> ) {
>> fillWithArguments(a, pos, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7);
>> return a;
>> }
>>
>> private static Object[] fillArrayAlt(
>> Integer pos, Object[] a,
>> Object a0, Object a1, Object a2, Object a3,
>> Object a4, Object a5, Object a6, Object a7
>> ) {
>> int i = pos;
>> a[i++] = a0;
>> a[i++] = a1;
>> a[i++] = a2;
>> a[i++] = a3;
>> a[i++] = a4;
>> a[i++] = a5;
>> a[i++] = a6;
>> a[i++] = a7;
>> return a;
>> }
>>
>> @Benchmark
>> public Object[] fillArray() {
>> return fillArray(0, new Object[8], a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6,
>> a7);
>> }
>>
>> @Benchmark
>> public Object[] fillArrayAlt() {
>> return fillArrayAlt(0, new Object[8], a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6,
>> a7);
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> The results on my i7 with JMH arguments "-i 8 -wi 5 -f 1 -gc true":
>>
>> Benchmark Mode Samples Score Score
>> error Units
>> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillArray thrpt 8 48601447.674
>> 5414853.634 ops/s
>> j.t.FillArrayTest.fillArrayAlt thrpt 8 90044973.732 8713725.735
>> ops/s
>>
>>
>> So fillArrayAlt is nearly twice as fast...
>>
>> Regards, Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/2/14, 7:52 PM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8058892/webrev.00/
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8058892
>>>>
>>>> Core j.l.i classes are preloaded during VM startup in order to avoid
>>>> possible deadlock when accessing JSR292-related functionality from
>>>> multiple threads. After LF sharing-related changes, FILL_ARRAYS and
>>>> ARRAYS are initialized too early. It affects startup time & footprint of
>>>> applications that don't use JSR292.
>>>>
>>>> The fix is to move these fields into MHI.Lazy class, thus delaying their
>>>> initialization to the first usage of JSR292 API.
>>>>
>>>> Testing: failing test, manual (measured HelloWorld app startup time;
>>>> compared -XX:+PrintCompilation logs)
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Vladimir Ivanov
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>>> mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
