Hi Sanne, ultimately I believe that it is not about the "intrinsic" (sorry for overloading the term) performance of the memory allocation invocations, but the advantage of using ByteBuffers as the de-facto standard for passing data around between Infinispan, JGroups and any I/O layers (network, disk). Removing various points of copying, marshalling, etc is the real win.

Tristan On 01/20/2014 03:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > At our meeting last week, there was a debate about the fact that the > (various) off-heap buffer usage proposals, including NIO2 reads, would > potentially be slower because of it potentially needing more "native" > invocations. > > At the following link you can see the full list of methods which will > actually be optimised using "intrinsics" i.e. being replaced by the > compiler as it was a macro with highly optimized ad-hoc code which > might be platform dependant (or in other words, which will be able to > take best advantage of the capabilities of the executing platform): > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/hotspot/file/d61761bf3050/src/share/v... > > In particular, note the "do_intrinsic" qualifier marking all uses of > Unsafe and the NIO Buffer. > > Hope you'll all agree now that further arguing about any of this will > be dismissed unless we want to talk about measurements :-) > > Kudos to all scepticals (always good), still let's not dismiss the > large work needed for this yet, nor let us revert from the rightful > path until we know we've tried it to the end: I do not expect to see > incremental performance improvements while we make progress, it might > even slow down until we get to the larger rewards. > > Cheers, > Sanne > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev