linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: JVM under Linux on MIPS

To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: JVM under Linux on MIPS
From: TAKANO Ryousei <takano@os-omicron.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:09:02 +0900
In-reply-to: <007701c2e22c$66e30e70$10eca8c0@grendel>
Organization: OS/omicron Project
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20030302121820.A30790@linux-mips.org> <20030304011459.457.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> <20030304171340.1a9af44d.takano@os-omicron.org> <007701c2e22c$66e30e70$10eca8c0@grendel>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Hi Kevin,

> I'm very pleased to hear that you got it running on a Vr41xx,
> but I'm curious about the JIT behavior you saw.  I can believe
> that it could run "hello world", but does it really pass all the
> internal regression tests ("make check")?  Are you running
> a "normal" MIPS/Linux distribution which assumes a
> hardware FPU and does kernel emulation where necessary,
> or are you using a purely soft-float environment?  I ask
> this because most of the problems I have with the JIT are
> in areas where mixed integer/floating arguments are being
> passed, and those might not be an issue with soft-float.
> 
I have cross-compiled Kaffe, so it did not pass "make check".
I tried it under a Linux-VR kernel(kernel-2.4.0-test9) which is
enabled with a kernel FPU emulation.
I have not tried under a Linux/MIPS kernel.

> As for the performance you observed, how much memory
> did you have on the board, and what kind of secondary storage
> (disk?) hardware was used?  66MHz isn't fast, but the combined
> compile-and-run time for Caffeinemark for the patched
> kaffe 1.0.7 on a MIPS 5Kc core at 160MHz was in fact
> pretty good, better than 3 Embedded Caffeienmarks
> per megahertz, which isn't as fast as commercial dynmic
> compilers, but which is still several times faster than most
> commercial interpretive JVMs.  Running fully interpretive,
> kaffe's performance is mediocre but reasonable, I certainly
> wasn't seeing delays of 10 seconds to run "hello world",
> which is roughly what one would expect scaling your reported
> run time by the frequency.  I really think that you are far more
> likely to have been I/O bound, either from paging or from file I/O.
> 
TANBAC TB0193 has 16MB SDRAM, and it is using Compact Flash
as a secondary storage.

I try to make jar files compact (strips unused packages) 
for a faster initialization.

Thanks,
TAKANO Ryousei

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>