Re: Java performance on AMD64

Greg Lewis wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:09:34AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:59:12PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:32:53PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
Hey All,
I been benchmarking Diablo Java under AMD64 on 6.2R and using the same methods I posted a while ago detailed somewhat here
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-java/2006-August/005576.html

The difference here is that libthr now works under Amd64.
But it appears libthr to be about half the speed of libpthread under AMD64 mode which is the opposite behavior when using it under i386.
That's contrary to my benchmarks :( Dunno what might be wrong though,
assuming you have checked all the obvious.

Kris
OK,
I did more testing and it appears the 6.1R Diablo Java binary package on Amd64 on 6.2/libthr appears to be the problem, it's as much as 60% slower then libpthread.

On 6.2R Amd64 I built the ports version of jdk1.5 and libthr appeared to be around 25% faster then libpthread.
But using the Diablo jdk package for 6.1R on 6.2 under libpthread is even faster by around 15% over anything I could do for any combination of Java and libthr.

I would guess that a new 6.2R Amd64 Diablo package would probably turn it around again for libthr and I would guess it would again around 20% faster then anything I can get from Java under AMD64 6.2R, what's going on here exactly I don't know.
That's weird, I thought the diablo package was just compiled from
jdk1.5. It could be there was a performance regression from a change
made to the port after 6.1 - it would be great if you can follow it up
with the java@ people.

Diablo is compiled from the partner source. jdk15 is built on the SCSL
release. The SCSL release was done when 1.5.0 was released. The current
release of Diablo is based off of 1.5.0_07, so there were changes in between
the two that may/will affect performance.
I am confused why this is thought to be a problem with Java. Is it not true that libthr does not allow new threads to be scheduled on other CPUs? I thought that was the whole point of the difference between libthr and libpthread. This would mean that having additional CPUs would be beneficial to libpthread whereas it would not help libthr performance. Is all your testing being done on machines with the same number of CPUs?

_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Java performance on AMD64
    ... The difference here is that libthr now works under Amd64. ... I did more testing and it appears the 6.1R Diablo Java binary package on ... I would guess that a new 6.2R Amd64 Diablo package would probably turn ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: Java performance on AMD64
    ... The difference here is that libthr now works under Amd64. ... I did more testing and it appears the 6.1R Diablo Java binary package on ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: Java performance on AMD64
    ... The difference here is that libthr now works under Amd64. ... I did more testing and it appears the 6.1R Diablo Java binary package on ... I would guess that a new 6.2R Amd64 Diablo package would probably turn ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: OO.org and Java trouble
    ... amd64 tends to make quite a lot of weirdness surface. ... Since Sun are significantly involved in both OOo and Java, ... I've had no trouble with Java on my AMD64 ... the frame-oriented word processor that I used on my ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: Is Java/Tomcat on FBSD practical?
    ... > My biggest problem has been Java. ... > I've done the same install on mac and windows with no problem. ... > I'm basically wondering if running Tomcat or any other java on this ... Not with diablo but with the jdk13 ...
    (freebsd-questions)