From: David L. <da...@li...> - 2011-05-16 11:20:24
|
Quoting Anton Kovalenko (an...@sw...): > The problem with adding this optimization as a separate patch is that a > lot more of code will have to be committed initially, and removed in the > separate optimization patch. > > Well, it seems to contradict the common understanding of "optimization" > (some guru writing a thing that runs fast but is hard to understand): my > approach to safepoint code refactoring was going from several problems > solved by several pieces of code (here and there) to an "optimized" > solution eliminating them all at once. I've also tried to ensure that > the new code could be explained and understood faster than the old bits > and pieces replaced by it; however, the _relative_ code complexity > (defined as "time to understand what code does / code size") increased > nevertheless. OK. I will try to grok your newer approach in fullness before committing to any older codebase. It probably wouldn't be too detrimental to the future development of the safepoint feature to commit an old-style patchset first and switch to a better STW protocol later. But it's an important strategic choice and should be an informed decision. d. |