On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 02:04:51 GMT, Chen Liang <li...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Speed up `ConstantPoolBuilder::classEntry(ClassDesc)` by going through >> `ClassDesc` comparison and reusing descriptor hash to calculate internal >> name hash if possible. No suitable device to run benchmarks so need to find >> something to run the new benchmark to ensure things work as intended. > > Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge > or a rebase. The pull request now contains 15 commits: > > - Fix build > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/classentry-speedup > - Buggy 2nd attempt - crashes hotspot > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/classentry-speedup > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/classentry-speedup > - More conflicts > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/classentry-speedup > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/classentry-speedup > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/classentry-speedup > - Another bug in benchmark > - ... and 5 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/996790c7...6117a5bd Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units Score Error Units ConstantPoolBuildingClassEntry.freshCreationWithDescs thrpt 5 340.391 ± 0.607 ops/ms 351.801 ± 5.991 ops/ms ConstantPoolBuildingClassEntry.freshCreationWithInternalNames thrpt 5 408.762 ± 5.699 ops/ms 397.367 ± 1.516 ops/ms ConstantPoolBuildingClassEntry.identicalLookup thrpt 5 641.875 ± 7.192 ops/ms 2202.179 ± 464.878 ops/ms ConstantPoolBuildingClassEntry.internalNameLookup thrpt 5 2054.220 ± 237.406 ops/ms 1476.090 ± 33.318 ops/ms ConstantPoolBuildingClassEntry.nonIdenticalLookup thrpt 5 645.414 ± 14.929 ops/ms 1811.743 ± 83.868 ops/ms ConstantPoolBuildingClassEntry.oldStyleLookup thrpt 5 651.489 ± 10.941 ops/ms 529.306 ± 4.414 ops/ms Latest benchmark results. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20667#issuecomment-2361845713
