[PATCH] Reduce Chance Of Mistakenly Early Backing Memory Cleanup
vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com
Wed Feb 7 15:22:35 UTC 2018
>> Objects.requireNonNull() shows zero overhead here.
>> I guess the main question is whether Objects.requireNonNull(this)
>> behavior in the former test is a result of chance and current Hotspot
>> behavior or is it somehow guaranteed by the spec.
> I haven't looked into what actually happens in JIT-compilers on your
> benchmark, but I'm surprised it works at all.
So, here's why Objects.requireNonNull() keeps the receiver alive in your
JIT-compilers in HotSpot aggressively prune dead locals , but they do
that based on method bytecode analysis  (and not on optimized IR).
So, any usage of a local extends its live range, even if that usage is
eliminated in generated code. It means an oop in that local will live
past its last usage in generated code and all safepoints (in generated
code) till last usage (on bytecode level) will enumerate the local it is
If there were GC-only safepoints supported, then JITs could still prune
unused locals from oop maps, but HotSpot doesn't have them and all
safepoints in generated code keep full JVM state, so it's always
possible to deoptimize at any one of them (and then run into the code
which is eliminated in generated code).
If there are no safepoints till the end of the method, then nothing will
keep the object alive. But there's no way for GC to collect it, since
GCs rely on safepoints to mark thread stack. (That's why I mentioned
GC-only safepoints earlier.)
As a conclusion: removing @DontInline on Reference.reachabilityFence()
should eliminate most of the overhead (no call anymore, additional spill
may be needed) and still keep it working. It's not guaranteed by JVMS,
but at least should work on HotSpot JVM (in its current state).
So, nice discovery, Peter! :-) Want to file an RFE & fix it?
> Explicit null check on the receiver is an easy target for elimination
> and should be effectively a no-op in generated code. (And that's what
> you observe with the benchmark!) Once the check is gone, nothing keeps
> receiver alive anymore (past the last usage).
> So, I'd say such behavior it's a matter of chance in your case and can't
> be relied on in general. And definitely not something guaranteed by JVMS.
> Best regards,
> Vladimir Ivanov
More information about the core-libs-dev