On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 04:18:20 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
> ### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
> From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic
> instructions. But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The reason
> is the removed bi
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:31:23 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Quick question about the violation of the "This is equivalent to" spec: Does
>> our new implementation lead to any observable side effects that make the
>> returned results or thrown exceptions different from that of `format(obj,
>> new Str
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 17:31:53 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> I believe the `static MessageFormat.format(...` also has similar incorrect
> "this is equivalent ..." wording, if you could please include that as well. I
> think we should also rename the issue (and CSR) as well since the scope has
> changed
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:54:41 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> Following up on my previous comment regarding the _untrue wording_.
>
> I no longer think we can just split the implementation and specification
> portion of this PR into two issues, since if we backport the implementation
> only, the specifi
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:33:02 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> I did not mean to introduce a public API for this change (if we do, the fix
>> cannot be backported). I thought we could define a package private one, but
>> based on your observation, it may get messier... So I agree that falling
>> back
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:08:06 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 896: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/j
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:33:02 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
> > So, considering all the information given, is it enough to start our new
> > review process? @naotoj @liach @justin-curtis-lu
>
> Well, I was suggesting the same buffer proxying for other Format classes than
> NumberFormat subclasses, suc
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:58:27 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 896: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>
> I did not mean to introduce a
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:25:27 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
>> ### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>> From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic
>> instructions. But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The
>> reason is th
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:53:25 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> > It requires append(int), but the Appendable has no such method.
>
> If via `Appendable` we don't have access to `append(int)`, can we simply
> `append(String.valueOf(int))`. And similarly for `append(char[], int, int)`,
> can we `append(St
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:00:33 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
>> ### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>> From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic
>> instructions. But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The
>> reason is th
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 02:12:01 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/text/Format.java line 278:
>>
>>> 276: * {@code false} otherwise
>>> 277: */
>>> 278: boolean isInternalSubclass() {
>>
>> Since this
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:39:30 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 896: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/ja
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:36:52 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 896: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:00:33 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
>> ### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>> From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic
>> instructions. But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The
>> reason is th
ow about using
>>> something as simple as "StringBuf"?
>>
>> Thanks for your comment. The long name bother me for a while. I have changed
>> it to ""StringBuf".
>
> Hi @lingjun-cg
>
> Thanks for your work here.
>
> While t
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 04:18:20 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
> ### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
> From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic
> instructions. But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The reason
> is the removed bi
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 50 3
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:53:45 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 896: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:40:49 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 896: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>
> src/jav
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:40:48 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
> I second Justin's suggestion here. The change should benefit every
> implementation in the JDK, not only NumberFormat. Also, I might suggest
> renaming the new class, as it is kind of long/redundant. How about using
> something as simple as
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:44:57 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 896: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>
> Also it would be helpful to c
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:44:57 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
> Also it would be helpful to compare the performance without biased locking in
> JDK11.
If run in JDK11 without biased locking, the performance is as same as run in
current JDK.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/195
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 02:32:28 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
> Run the below benchmark test ,it show the average time of new
> DecimalFormat() increase 18% when compare to jdk 11.
>
> the result with jdk 11:
>
> Benchmark Mode CntSc
icant time.
> After replacing the lambda implementation with a simple loop , it shows
> nearly the same performance as jdk 11.
>
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/
DecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 5
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:54:56 GMT, kuaiwei wrote:
> > > Hi, I think you can add the jmh test case.
> >
> >
> > [#19513
> > (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19513#issue-2330131051)
> > already contains the test case.
>
> I mean it can be added as a test case in test/micro and be e
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:21:15 GMT, kuaiwei wrote:
> Hi, I think you can add the jmh test case.
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19513#issue-2330131051 already contains the
test case.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19513#issuecomment-2146844849
Run the below benchmark test ,it show the average time of new DecimalFormat()
increase 18% when compare to jdk 11.
the result with jdk 11:
Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 248.300 ? 5.158 ns/op
the result with
t 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode CntScore Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnlyavgt 50 364.214 ? 1.191 ns/op
> Jmh
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 06:13:35 GMT, lingjun-cg wrote:
>> ### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>> From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic
>> instructions. But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The
>> reason is th
s/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat avgt 50 615.145 ? 2.478 ns/op
> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly avgt 50 209.874 ? 9.951 ns/op
>
>
> ### JDK 11
>
> Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnly
### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic
>instructions. But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The reason
>is the removed biased locking.
The DecimalFormat uses StringBuffer everywhere, and StringBuf
49 matches
Mail list logo
