Go GC: Prioritizing low latency and simplicity

Re:Go GC: Prioritizing low latency and simplicity by x0x0 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @05:11AM (#10151391)

I think I disagree about the observability -- vtune is a lot easier to use when just tuning straight C++ rather than java

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go GC: Prioritizing low latency and simplicity by pron on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @06:29AM (#10151581)

Are you familiar with JMH's perfasm? http://psy-lob-saw.blogspot.com/2015/07/jmh-perfasm.html

And for profiling apps on production, I've yet to encounter a more thorough, low-overhead profiler than Java Flight Recorder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go GC: Prioritizing low latency and simplicity by x0x0 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @02:25PM (#10154596)

no but i'll check it out this afternoon. Thanks!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go GC: Prioritizing low latency and simplicity by threeseed on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @08:12AM (#10151820)

VTune is not too dissimilar to JProfiler.

And as pron mentioned plenty of tools exist for lower level access.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go GC: Prioritizing low latency and simplicity by vitalyd on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @10:12AM (#10152413)

Vtune gives access to PMU counters as well as attributing them to assembly. JProfiler is a purely java level profiler (it won't even tell you Hotspots in the JVM itself, nevermind assembly). They're not really comparable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go GC: Prioritizing low latency and simplicity by x0x0 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @02:24PM (#10154587)

jprofiler, at least for my use cases, isn't really similar to vtune at all. I know what my hot spots are: it's the inner bits of algorithms that run a few billion to a few trillion times. What I need to do is understand, as granularly as possible, the exact instructions and how the various caches and memory are operating. Convex and tree optimizers are generally memory speed limited and my goal is to have this code run at eg 0.9+ of memory b/w speed.

[ Parent | on HN ]