On Tue, 6 May 2025 21:45:34 GMT, Mohamed Issa wrote:
>> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
>> java.lang.Math.cbrt() using libm. There is a new set of micro-benchmarks are
>> included to check the performance of specific input value ranges to help
>> prevent regressions
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:25:03 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 709
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 01:01:54 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> My testing passed.
Thank You Vladimir!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20657#issuecomment-2370044599
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:14:10 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Looks good. I have only one nitpick. I will start testing.
Thank you Vladimir!
> src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_Compiler.cpp line 170:
>
>> 168: case vmIntrinsics::_dcos:
>> 169: case vmIntrinsics::_dtan:
>> 170: #if defined(X86)
>
> U
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 21:15:11 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
>> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
>> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>>
>> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
>> -- | -- | -- | --
>>
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 23:10:19 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan
wrote:
>> Hi Joe (@jddarcy),
>>
>> As suggested by Sandhya (@sviswa7), I added ~750 fixed point tests for tanh
>> in `TanhTests.java` using the quad precision tanh implementation in
>> libquadmath library from gcc.
>>
>> Please let me kn
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:59:54 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>> If the test is going to use randomness, then its jtreg tags should include
>>>
>>> `@key randomness`
>>>
>>> and it is preferable to use jdk.test.lib.RandomFactory to get and Random
>>> object since that handles printing out a key so the r
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:21:36 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan
wrote:
>> So far, this will be the only intrinsic implementation of tanh. Therefore,
>> at the moment it is just checking the consistency of the intrinsic
>> implementation with StrictMath/FDLIBM tanh. If the intrinsic has a ~1 ulp
>> accu
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:26:38 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan
wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> update libm tanh reference test with code review suggestions
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:01:09 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> If the test is going to use randomness, then its jtreg tags should include
>
> `@key randomness`
>
> and it is preferable to use jdk.test.lib.RandomFactory to get and Random
> object since that handles printing out a key so the random sequenc
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:55:18 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add stub initialization and extra tanh tests
>
> test/jdk/java/lang/Math/Hyperbolic
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:14:22 GMT, Yudi Zheng wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add stub initialization and extra tanh tests
>
> src/hotspot/share/jvmci/
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 22:44:43 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>> This PR doesn't include any additional tests. It is often appropriate to
>>> add more regression testing when introducing a new implementation of a
>>> method.
>>
>> Thank You Joe for the suggestion. Will add more tests. (This PR passes th
> The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
> java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
>
> Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
> -- | -- | -- | --
> MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 10:54:11 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64_tanh.cpp line 437:
>>
>>> 435: __ mulpd(xmm1, xmm1);
>>> 436: __ movdqu(xmm4, ExternalAddress(pv + 32), r11 /*rscratch*/);
>>> 437: __ mulpd(xmm2, xmm1);
>>
>> I would encourage either you ad
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:47:13 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> This PR doesn't include any additional tests. It is often appropriate to add
> more regression testing when introducing a new implementation of a method.
Thank You Joe for the suggestion. Will add more tests. (This PR passes the
tier-1 tanh
The goal of this PR is to implement an x86_64 intrinsic for
java.lang.Math.tanh() using libm
Benchmark (ops/ms) | Stock JDK | Tanh intrinsic | Speedup
-- | -- | -- | --
MathBench.tanhDouble | 70900 | 95618 | 1.35x
-
Commit messages:
- Fix bug in NaN path
- 8338694: x86_64 intrinsi
On Wed, 8 May 2024 20:37:28 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the data below.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>>
>> name | builder | size | mode | count | score
>> -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
>> b01 | RANDOM | 600 | avg | 325677 | 6.764
>> b01 | RANDOM |
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:01:30 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the data below:
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>>
>>
>>
>> name | builder | size | mode | count | score
>> -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
>> b01 | RANDOM | 600 | avg | 325677 | 6.862
>> b01 |
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 21:36:46 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>>> Hi Vamsi (@vamsi-parasa), few questions on your test environment:
>>>
>>> * what are the hardware specs of your server ?
>>> * bare-metal or virtual ?
>>> * are other services or big processes running ?
>>> * os tuning ? CPU HT: o
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:29:59 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
>> Hello Vamsi (@vamsi-parasa),
>>
>> Could you please run benchmarking of 4 cases with **updated** test class
>> **ArraysSortNew2**?
>> https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:54:03 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hello Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the data below. Each DPQS class was copied to java.util and the
>> JDK was recompiled.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>>
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 20:04:20 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> The new ArraysSortNew.Java has compilation issues:
>>
>>
>> error: DualPivotQuicksort is not public in java.util; cannot be accessed
>> from outside package
>> java.util.DualPivotQu
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 21:31:36 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the data below. All tests were run after putting the DPQS code in
>> java.util package and recompiling the JDK for each case.
>>
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:23:38 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the JMH data below.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>>
>> Benchmark (builder) (size) Mode Cnt Score Error
>> Units
>> ArraysSort.Int.a15RANDOM 600
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:23:38 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the JMH data below.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>>
>> Benchmark (builder) (size) Mode Cnt Score Error
>> Units
>> ArraysSort.Int.a15RANDOM 600
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:36:22 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski)
>>
>> Please see the data below using the latest version of AVX512 sort that got
>> integrated into OpenJDK.
>>
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:36:22 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski)
>>
>> Please see the data below using the latest version of AVX512 sort that got
>> integrated into OpenJDK.
>>
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:36:22 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski)
>>
>> Please see the data below using the latest version of AVX512 sort that got
>> integrated into OpenJDK.
>>
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:42:09 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Thank you Magnus!
>
> @vamsi-parasa You said:
>> Made sure that OpenJDK builds without errors using both GCC 7.5 and GCC 6.4.
>
> but now we have https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8321688. Did you
> introduce any changes after you
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 20:08:22 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the data below.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>>
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 20:08:22 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski),
>>
>> Please see the data below.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>>
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 00:12:41 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa wrote:
> The goal is to develop faster sort routines for x86_64 CPUs by taking
> advantage of AVX2 instructions. This enhancement provides an order of
> magnitude speedup for Arrays.sort() using int, long, float and double arrays.
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 22:37:26 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> I pushed closed changes.
Thanks Vladimir!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16534#issuecomment-1847939767
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 22:06:14 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > href="file:///C:/Users/sparasa/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlc
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 00:31:26 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Testing have only one failure in closed tests and I need to fix it before
> this can be pushed.
Thanks Vladimir for the update. Is the test failure because of this PR?
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16534#is
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 22:06:14 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy wrote:
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > href="file:///C:/Users/sparasa/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlc
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 23:09:01 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa wrote:
>>> LGTM, thanks!
>>
>> Thanks Jatin!
>
>> @vamsi-parasa, sorry, I was wrong. I missed that you need to check type
>> `bt`. Latest change is more complicated than it was before. Please revert it
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 17:44:24 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa wrote:
>> LGTM, thanks!
>
>> LGTM, thanks!
>
> Thanks Jatin!
> @vamsi-parasa, sorry, I was wrong. I missed that you need to check type `bt`.
> Latest change is more complicated than it was before. Please r
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
> x
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 18:41:26 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> add missing header files
>
> src/hotspot/share/opto/library_call.cpp
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 17:42:39 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
> LGTM, thanks!
Thanks Jatin!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16534#issuecomment-1843372385
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 19:37:34 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request with a new target base
>> due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated
>> changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 19:19:23 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> remove unused avx2 64 bit sort functions; add assertions
>
> src/java.base
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:59:19 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Hi Magnus (@magicus),
>>
>>> Are you saying that when compiling with GCC 6, it will just silently ignore
>>> `-std=c++17`? I'd have assumed that it printed a warning or error about an
>>> unknown or invalid option, if C++17 is not
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 19:33:48 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request with a new target base
>> due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated
>> changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:19:00 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Hi Marcus (@magicus), please see the updated code which added guards to
>> check for GCC version >= 7.5 in
>> `src/java.base/linux/native/libsimdsort/{avx2-linux-qsort.cpp,
>> avx512-linux-qsort.cpp}`. GCC >= 7.5 is needed to compil
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 22:15:24 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa wrote:
>> The goal is to develop faster sort routines for x86_64 CPUs by taking
>> advantage of AVX2 instructions. This enhancement provides an order of
>> magnitude speedup for Arrays.sort() using int, long, float
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 11:48:44 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> But you are saying that you want to skip building this library unless you
>>> have a gcc version that supports c++17?
>>>
>> Yes, the request is to skip building the simdsort library if GCC version is
>> < 8 as only GCC >= 8 suppor
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
&
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:07:19 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> But you are saying that you want to skip building this library unless you
> have a gcc version that supports c++17?
>
Yes, the request is to skip building the simdsort library if GCC version is < 8
as only GCC >= 8 supports C++17 fe
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:38:22 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Seems a bit odd to me too as the existing simd code seems to C code residing
>> in .cpp files for some reason.
>
> Yeah, that is also a good point. Why setting C++ flags in CFLAGS, and not
> just CXXFLAGS?
>
> Also @vamsi-parasa, d
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:38:22 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Seems a bit odd to me too as the existing simd code seems to C code residing
>> in .cpp files for some reason.
>
> Yeah, that is also a good point. Why setting C++ flags in CFLAGS, and not
> just CXXFLAGS?
>
> Also @vamsi-parasa, d
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:25:57 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/opto/library_call.cpp line 5448:
>>
>>> 5446: BasicType bt = elem_type->basic_type();
>>> 5447: // Disable the intrinsic for 64-bit types with AVX2
>>> 5448: if ((bt == T_LONG || bt == T_DOUBLE) && UseAVX == 2) {
>
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:08:00 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/opto/library_call.cpp line 5391:
>>
>>> 5389: BasicType bt = elem_type->basic_type();
>>> 5390: // Disable the intrinsic for 64-bit types with AVX2
>>> 539
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:23:00 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request with a new target base
>> due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated
>> changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull r
57.175 | 5.7
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 4299.519 | 862.63 | 5.0
> ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 50889.4 | 10972.19 | 4.6
>
>
>
>
>
> xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"
>
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 23:44:25 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan
wrote:
>> Not listed here: https://oca.opensource.oracle.com/?ojr=contributors
>
> Yes, Vamsi is part of Intel Java team. He also has the author status
> (https://openjdk.org/census#sparasa).
> @sviswa7 I am asking about the copyright holde
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:26:52 GMT, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
>> * improved mixed insertion sort (makes whole sorting faster)
>> * introduced Radix which sort shows several times boost of performance and
>> has linear complexity instead of n*ln(n)
>> * improved merging sort for almost sorted data
>>
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:04:55 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan
wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request with a new target base
>> due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated
>> changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull r
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 23:14:18 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
>> Hello Vamsi (@vamsi-parasa),
>>
>> Thank you very much for benchmarking, I appreciate your efforts!
>>
>> I looked at non-parallel sorting when radix sort is switched off
>> (DualPivotQu
ArraysSort.longSort | 25 | 0.101 | 0.073 | 1.4
> ArraysSort.longSort | 50 | 0.227 | 0.219 | 1.0
> ArraysSort.longSort | 75 | 0.446 | 0.332 | 1.3
> ArraysSort.longSort | 100 | 0.714 | 0.557 | 1.3
> ArraysSort.longSort | 1000 ...
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request with a ne
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:09:13 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Comparision of Stock JDK ( with AVX512sort) vs. Radix sort for All
>> (https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForAll.java)
>> > xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xm
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:26:52 GMT, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
>> * improved mixed insertion sort (makes whole sorting faster)
>> * introduced Radix which sort shows several times boost of performance and
>> has linear complexity instead of n*ln(n)
>> * improved merging sort for almost sorted data
>>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 17:33:02 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>> Hello Vladimir (@iaroslavski)
>>
>> Will provide the performance data using AVX512 sort as baseline by early
>> next week.
>> (Friday is a holiday for us due to Veterans Day)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vamsi
>
> Hello Vamsi (@vamsi-para
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:26:52 GMT, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
>> * improved mixed insertion sort (makes whole sorting faster)
>> * introduced Radix which sort shows several times boost of performance and
>> has linear complexity instead of n*ln(n)
>> * improved merging sort for almost sorted data
>>
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 18:12:36 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa wrote:
>> Hello @PaulSandoz and @AlanBateman !
>>
>> Did you have time to look at the latest benchmarking?
>
> Hello Vladimir (@iaroslavski)
>
> Will provide the performance data using AVX512 sort as
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:15:37 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The goal is to develop faster sort routines for x86_64 CPUs by taking
>> advantage of AVX2 instructions. This enhancement provides an order of
>> magnitude speedup for Arrays.sort() using int, long, float and double arrays.
>>
>> F
The goal is to develop faster sort routines for x86_64 CPUs by taking advantage
of AVX2 instructions. This enhancement provides an order of magnitude speedup
for Arrays.sort() using int, long, float and double arrays.
For serial sort on random data, this PR shows upto ~7.5x improvement for 32-bi
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:26:33 GMT, Vladimir Yaroslavskiy
wrote:
>>> Hi Paul (@PaulSandoz), Alan (@AlanBateman), Any update? Do you agree with
>>> Radix sort in parallel case only?
>>
>> I think its definitely a better fit, but another aspect of my previous
>> comment was wondering if we need a
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 03:21:52 GMT, himichael wrote:
>>> my question is that this feature should improve performance several times,
>>> but it doesn't look like there's much difference between open jdk 22.19 and
>>> jdk 8. is there a problem with my configuration ?
>>
>> Hello @himichael,
>>
>>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:31:14 GMT, himichael wrote:
> my question is that this feature should improve performance several times,
> but it doesn't look like there's much difference between open jdk 22.19 and
> jdk 8. is there a problem with my configuration ?
Hello @himichael,
Using your code s
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:44:03 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
> The goal of this PR is to address the follow-up comments to the SIMD
> accelerated sort PR (#14227) which implemented AVX512 intrinsics for
> Arrays.sort() methods.
> The proposed changes are:
>
> 1) Restric
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 04:41:37 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> My tier1-3,xcomp testing for v04 passed. I am integrating these changes. Lets
> continue discussion about changes for AMD in
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317976.
Thank you, Vladimir!
-
PR Comment: https://git.op
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:48:06 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add @ForceInline annotation to insertion and mixedInsertion sort
>
> make/modu
show_bug.cgi?id=105593
> 3) Minor changes in Javadoc strings
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
additional commit since the last revision:
Revert @ForceInline annotations for small array sort methods
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.open
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:31:05 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
>> Hi @vamsi-parasa,
>>
>> Both methods mixedInsertionSort and insertionSort are covered by intrinsics.
>> But insertionSort is run on leftmnost (one) part only and on small ( <
>> MAX_INSERTION
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 07:10:57 GMT, iaroslavski wrote:
> To have clear picture could you please run benchmarking to compare both
> cases: current implementation and implementation with Java insertionSort only?
>
> see changes `sort(int.class, a, Unsafe.ARRAY_INT_BASE_OFFSET, low, high,
> DualPiv
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:28:12 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa
wrote:
>> The goal of this PR is to address the follow-up comments to the SIMD
>> accelerated sort PR (#14227) which implemented AVX512 intrinsics for
>> Arrays.sort() methods.
>> The proposed changes are:
>
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 06:59:47 GMT, iaroslavski wrote:
> Also @forceinline in these changes only works for case when new intrinsics
> are not used. I would suggest to adapt/update JMH benchmark to cover all
> cases and see effect @forceinline without intrinsics. That will tell us which
> @forcei
show_bug.cgi?id=105593
> 3) Minor changes in Javadoc strings
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
additional commit since the last revision:
Add @ForceInline annotation to insertion and mixedInsertion sort
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.open
show_bug.cgi?id=105593
> 3) Minor changes in Javadoc strings
Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one
additional commit since the last revision:
fix whitespace in build script
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16124/files
- n
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
