|
View:
New views
8 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
|
|
very slow jni code callbacksI have a problem with jni code callbacks.
I have attached some code that shows the problem. The result of this code is: # results on fedora 11 # gcc/gcj 4.4.1 # kernel 2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64 # openjdk fedora-29.b16.fc11-x86_64 # # open jdk gcj # no_jni 1.48 7.46 ( 5 times slower) # jni 66.70 17140.00 (257 times slower) So when not using jni in this case gcj is 5 times slower. I suspect the jit compiler does a good for this small sample. The code with jni calls is however 257 timer slower. I really did not expect that. I also tried other java vm and they all have much better performance. So I expect a problem in the gcj library. When I use oprofile I see at lot of calls to execute_cfa_program and _Unwind_IteratePhdrCallback. |
|
|
Re: very slow jni code callbacksHerman ten Brugge wrote:
> I have a problem with jni code callbacks. > I have attached some code that shows the problem. > The result of this code is: > > # results on fedora 11 > # gcc/gcj 4.4.1 > # kernel 2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64 > # openjdk fedora-29.b16.fc11-x86_64 > # > # open jdk gcj > # no_jni 1.48 7.46 ( 5 times slower) > # jni 66.70 17140.00 (257 times slower) > > So when not using jni in this case gcj is 5 times slower. > I suspect the jit compiler does a good for this small sample. > > The code with jni calls is however 257 timer slower. I really > did not expect that. I also tried other java vm and they all > have much better performance. So I expect a problem in the > gcj library. > > When I use oprofile I see at lot of calls to execute_cfa_program > and _Unwind_IteratePhdrCallback. I think this is a bug. I've had a look at the code, and it's in jni.cc: _Jv_JNI_CallAnyVoidMethodV This calls _Jv_GetTypesFromSignature, which in turn iterates though all the class loaders looking up the types of all the arguments. But as far as I can see this is a pointless waste of time: the only use of the type of each argument is to determine whether it's a primitive type or not, and we could certainly have done that when we created the jmethodID. There is a field in the method struct called ffi_arg_types, but I think it isn't used when calling C to Java via JNI. Note that JNI calls to Java code will always be somewhat slower than CNI since it goes though a libffi call, but this seems to me to be crazy extreme. I'm Cc:ing this to Tom Tromey, who wrote this code originally. Andrew. |
|
|
Re: very slow jni code callbacksOn Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote:
>> When I use oprofile I see at lot of calls to execute_cfa_program >> and _Unwind_IteratePhdrCallback. > > I think this is a bug. I've had a look at the code, and it's in > jni.cc: _Jv_JNI_CallAnyVoidMethodV > > This calls _Jv_GetTypesFromSignature, which in turn iterates though > all the class loaders looking up the types of all the arguments. > But as far as I can see this is a pointless waste of time: the only > use of the type of each argument is to determine whether it's a > primitive type or not, and we could certainly have done that when > we created the jmethodID. There is a field in the method struct called > ffi_arg_types, but I think it isn't used when calling C to Java via JNI. I think the underlying issue is that jMethodID is typedef'ed to libgcj's internal _Jv_Method. It really needs to use something more like the interpreter's _Jv_ResolvedMethod or _Jv_JNIMethod so that the arg types and return type (and, in fact, the ffi_cif itself) can be resolved once and reused. Bryce |
|
|
Re: very slow jni code callbacksBryce McKinlay wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@...> wrote: > >>> When I use oprofile I see at lot of calls to execute_cfa_program >>> and _Unwind_IteratePhdrCallback. >> I think this is a bug. I've had a look at the code, and it's in >> jni.cc: _Jv_JNI_CallAnyVoidMethodV >> >> This calls _Jv_GetTypesFromSignature, which in turn iterates though >> all the class loaders looking up the types of all the arguments. >> But as far as I can see this is a pointless waste of time: the only >> use of the type of each argument is to determine whether it's a >> primitive type or not, and we could certainly have done that when >> we created the jmethodID. There is a field in the method struct called >> ffi_arg_types, but I think it isn't used when calling C to Java via JNI. > > I think the underlying issue is that jMethodID is typedef'ed to > libgcj's internal _Jv_Method. It really needs to use something more > like the interpreter's _Jv_ResolvedMethod or _Jv_JNIMethod so that the > arg types and return type (and, in fact, the ffi_cif itself) can be > resolved once and reused. Well, sure, but it seems to me like this is obvious and almost trivial, so I don't understand what the problem is. I'm guessing that it's simply that no-one ever got around to doing it. Andrew. |
|
|
Re: very slow jni code callbacksBryce> I think the underlying issue is that jMethodID is typedef'ed to
Bryce> libgcj's internal _Jv_Method. It really needs to use something more Bryce> like the interpreter's _Jv_ResolvedMethod or _Jv_JNIMethod so that the Bryce> arg types and return type (and, in fact, the ffi_cif itself) can be Bryce> resolved once and reused. I think there is some reason we use _Jv_Method, and not something else, for the jMethodID typedef. I don't remember what it was. Tom |
|
|
Re: very slow jni code callbacksAndrew> This calls _Jv_GetTypesFromSignature, which in turn iterates though
Andrew> all the class loaders looking up the types of all the arguments. Andrew> But as far as I can see this is a pointless waste of time: the only Andrew> use of the type of each argument is to determine whether it's a Andrew> primitive type or not, and we could certainly have done that when Andrew> we created the jmethodID. Yeah, this could use some improvement. Even a variant of _Jv_GetTypesFromSignature that did less work would help. Tom |
|
|
Re: very slow jni code callbacksOn 09/28/09 21:01, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Andrew> This calls _Jv_GetTypesFromSignature, which in turn iterates though > Andrew> all the class loaders looking up the types of all the arguments. > Andrew> But as far as I can see this is a pointless waste of time: the only > Andrew> use of the type of each argument is to determine whether it's a > Andrew> primitive type or not, and we could certainly have done that when > Andrew> we created the jmethodID. > > Yeah, this could use some improvement. > Even a variant of _Jv_GetTypesFromSignature that did less work would > help results for callbacks. The 4.1.2 release shows some different results. # open jdk gcj # no_jni 1.48 12.12 ( 8 times slower) # jni 66.70 200.93 ( 3 times slower) So there must be a change some time ago that made this much slower. Herman. |
|
|
Re: very slow jni code callbacksHerman ten Brugge wrote:
> I did try some older gcc releases because I once had good > results for callbacks. > The 4.1.2 release shows some different results. > > # open jdk gcj > # no_jni 1.48 12.12 ( 8 times slower) > # jni 66.70 200.93 ( 3 times slower) > > So there must be a change some time ago that made this > much slower. It depends only on the number of active ClassLoaders, and how much processing they do. The fix for this is to remove the classname lookups at runtime. Andrew. |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |