Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "keepstubs".
2012 Mar 07
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Performance degradation when repeatedly exchanging JITted functions
...the new function, since all calls use the stub anyway.
Since - as I wrote - several places in the JIT rely on the global
mapping being updated to the start of the newly jitted function, I
didn't change that. Instead, after jitting a function, the mapping is
changend back to the stub, if the KeepStubs flag is set.
The only drawback of this is that *directly* recursive calls still
bypass the stub and jump back directly to the function pointer. But
since exchanging a function while another thread is executing it is
unsafe anyway, this shouldn't matter. Even exchanging a function running
in...
2012 Mar 06
0
[LLVMdev] Performance degradation when repeatedly exchanging JITted functions
> I don't think that a patch implementing any of those approaches would be
> accepted, that's why I am tending towards implementing it outside of LLVM.
Why not? If they make LLVM better and aren't hacks, why wouldn't they be accepted?
________________________________________
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Clemens Hammacher
2012 Mar 06
2
[LLVMdev] Performance degradation when repeatedly exchanging JITted functions
On 3/6/12 5:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Advantage of using the latest address: one saved jmp per call.
Per newly JITted call ;)
> Advantage of using the initial address: easier G/C of intermediate
> versions, less things to keep track of.
I still think both versions require larger changes. When using the
latest address, you have to keep track of all JITted functions per