Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread Naoto Sato
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:40:00 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Also it would be helpful to compare the performance without biased locking >> in JDK11. > > @naotoj Has there been any discussion about adding overloads that take a > StringBuilder? @AlanBateman yes, we've discussed this over time, but i

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread Alan Bateman
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 compare the performance without bias

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread lingjun-cg
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 compare the performance without bias

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-04 Thread lingjun-cg
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

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-04 Thread Brent Christian
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:07:44 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 biased locking.

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-04 Thread Naoto Sato
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:07:44 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 biased locking.

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-04 Thread Naoto Sato
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:07:44 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 biased locking.

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-04 Thread Chen Liang
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:07:44 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 biased locking.

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-04 Thread Chen Liang
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:07:44 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 biased locking.

Re: RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v4]

2024-06-04 Thread lingjun-cg
> ### 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 St