This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI

From: David Daney <ddaney at caviumnetworks dot com>
To: Vaijayanthi Mala Suresh <vaijayanthimalas at gmail dot com>
Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:50:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI
References: <6f1633170908260338uabc2d4ex9a6ab0c38fa94b6f@mail.gmail.com>

Vaijayanthi Mala Suresh wrote:

Hi,

I have converted an application which makes more number of native
calls that was written using proprietary JVM compatible with version
Java 1.1 using GCJ.

I had tried to convert this application using GCJ + JNI as well as GCJ + CNI.
I don't see much performance improvements after using the GCJ
precompilation. ie., not using the interpreter.

Can someone help me to understand why there is no performance improvement.

It is doubtful, we know nothing about the application.

If most of the application time were spent in the native methods, optimizing the other parts would not help much.

If you are allocating a lot of memory, the memory allocator and GC can dominate your application time.

I am compiling this for MIPS platform.

That is notable in and of itself.

David Daney

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI
  - From: Vaijayanthi Mala Suresh

References:
- Performance of GCJ JNI and CNI
  - From: Vaijayanthi Mala Suresh

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]