-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
8300235: Use VarHandle access in Image(Input | Output)StreamImpl classes #12204
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
👋 Welcome back pminborg! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ | |||
jdk.jfr; | |||
exports jdk.internal.util.random to | |||
jdk.random; | |||
exports jdk.internal.util to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added coupling I am afraid.
Webrevs
|
Looks good overall. Did you measure any performance changes in the image streams? (Note that this PR and its corresponding issue are missing "Stream" in the title.) |
Here are some performance figures (TLDR: about 2% performance increase): Baseline (J21 master)
Patch
the
Tests were run on a Mac M1 aarch64 machine. |
Given the way the benchmarks are written, I suspect the actual performance gains are higher than indicated by the figures above. The benchmark likely spends more time in preparing for the call (e.g. checking, looping) than in the actual target method. |
Can the benchmark be moved to the JMH framework; it deals with the setup and measurements in a more predictable way. |
Here are some benchmarks:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good.
Thanks for the JMH benchmarks.
DOUBLE.set(array, offset, value); | ||
} | ||
|
||
private static VarHandle create(Class<?> viewArrayClass) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Renaming the method to createLittleEndian
would make the static assignments at the top unambiguous.
@minborg This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 156 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit b504c94.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
Do I read this correctly that the proposal is to have ByteArray and ByteArrayLittleEndian? |
This PR suggests improving performance by using the newly introduced class
jdk.internal.util.ByteArray
to improve packing/unpacking operations.The PR also proposes adding a
ByteArrayLittleEndian
class for support for little endian packing/unpacking.Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/12204/head:pull/12204
$ git checkout pull/12204
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/12204
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/12204/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 12204
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 12204
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12204.diff