(original) (raw)

Right, I didn't see FreqInlineSize on there, and the large jump table scenario seemed like one worth calling out as well?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Roland Westrelin <roland.westrelin@oracle.com> wrote:

> By "handled better" I mean for the JIT to not get scared about the bytecode size since machine code is rather compact and quick to execute (especially if the indirect jump via the jump table is predicted well). This is somewhat analogous to the JIT being spooked by methods > MaxInlineSize where the actual bytecode size isn't representative of the real cost (e.g. dead code, asserts, etc), but for FreqInlineSize.

John suggested a way to improve our heuristics:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6316156?focusedCommentId=13443564&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13443564

Roland.