Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
krzysztofslusarski.github.io
Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#2I'm genuinely curious about the effect, but I simply don't have patience for the AI writing. Can anyone give an actual non-garbage explanation with some respect for the reader?
Slightly less annoying summary from ChatGPT free: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a9ac7a3-15a0-83eb-8c2a-6f72cd9beb....
Caveat emptor: it makes high level sense, but I haven’t thought about it in detail.
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#3I'm genuinely curious about the effect, but I simply don't have patience for the AI writing. Can anyone give an actual non-garbage explanation with some respect for the reader? Slightly less annoying summary from ChatGPT free: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a9ac7a3-15a0-83eb-8c2a-6f72cd9beb... . Caveat emptor: it makes high level sense, but I haven’t thought about it in detail.
I'm genuinely curious: I read through the article and the narrative felt deliberate and didn't trigger my AI-radar. What made you think it was AI written?
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#4[deleted]
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#5I'm genuinely curious about the effect, but I simply don't have patience for the AI writing. Can anyone give an actual non-garbage explanation with some respect for the reader? Slightly less annoying summary from ChatGPT free: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a9ac7a3-15a0-83eb-8c2a-6f72cd9beb... . Caveat emptor: it makes high level sense, but I haven’t thought about it in detail.
I'm genuinely curious: I read through the article and the narrative felt deliberate and didn't trigger my AI-radar. What made you think it was AI written?
It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm genuinely curious: I read through the article and the narrative felt deliberate and didn't trigger my AI-radar. What made you think it was AI written?
It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary
> This article is the story of chasing that number down to a single machine instruction, and then finding out that the instruction was only half of the answer.
> So the difference has to be in what the JIT generated, and the profiler gives us exactly that.
> That is the whole vocabulary. Let’s read some code.
> Decoding the x86 version instruction by instruction is out of scope here.
> What is not architecture specific is the logic.
Here’s a segment flagged by Pangram: https://www.pangram.com/history/87e25169-30a4-4030-a65a-dba8...
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#7There are two practical lessons here:
1. Upgrade your JDK for the best performance (as the article says, the slowdown is gone in JDK 26).
2. Don't try to help the GC by pooling objects. Mutating old objects can be expensive, while allocating new ones is cheap (at least for objects that don't do some exceptionally expensive initialisation).
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary
> This article is the story of chasing that number down to a single machine instruction, and then finding out that the instruction was only half of the answer. > So the difference has to be in what the JIT generated, and the profiler gives us exactly that. > That is the whole vocabulary. Let’s read some code. > Decoding the x86 version instruction by instruction is out of scope here. > What is not architecture specif…
I don't know if it's AI or not, but if it is, it isn't egregious, and certainly not "garbage" or disrespectful to the reader.
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary
> This article is the story of chasing that number down to a single machine instruction, and then finding out that the instruction was only half of the answer. > So the difference has to be in what the JIT generated, and the profiler gives us exactly that. > That is the whole vocabulary. Let’s read some code. > Decoding the x86 version instruction by instruction is out of scope here. > What is not architecture specif…
[dead]
Re: Why is Arrays.fill 265 times slower on G1GC?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn’t read AI generated to me. I also love the irony of then using AI to generate a summary
> This article is the story of chasing that number down to a single machine instruction, and then finding out that the instruction was only half of the answer. > So the difference has to be in what the JIT generated, and the profiler gives us exactly that. > That is the whole vocabulary. Let’s read some code. > Decoding the x86 version instruction by instruction is out of scope here. > What is not architecture specif…
I don't think the Pangram result is shareable to others.
"If you are sure the link is correct, please make sure you are logged in with the account associated with this result."