RFR JDK-8234049: Implementation of Memory Access API (Incubator)

Maurizio Cimadamore maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com
Thu Dec 5 23:27:18 UTC 2019

On 05/12/2019 22:39, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> Awesome work, Maurizio!
> Regarding hotspot changes:
>> * ciField.cpp - this one is to trust final fields in the foreign 
>> memory access implementation (otherwise VM doesn't trust memory 
>> segment bounds)
> New packages aren't part of java.base. Considering the implementation 
> resides in an incubator module, is it enough to consider them as 
> trusted and well-known to the JVM?
This gives same performance as with -XX:+TrustFinalNonStaticFields - if 
we remove these changes, then memory segment bounds are never inlined. 
I'm happy to change this if you have other suggestions on how to get 
there, of course (I can run some benchmarks w/ and w/o and post some 
numbers if that helps).
>> * library_call.cpp - this one is a JIT compiler change to treat 
>> Thread.currentThread() as a well-known constant - which helps a lot 
>> in the confinement checks (thanks Vlad!)
> FTR it is tracked by JDK-8235143 [1] and the patch is under review [2].

Should I remove this from the patch then?


> Best regards,
> Vladimir Ivanov
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8235143
> [2] 
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2019-December/036295.html
>> * various Buffer-related changes; these changes are needed because 
>> the memory access API allows a memory segment to be projected into a 
>> byte buffer, for interop reasons. As such, we need to insert a 
>> liveness check in the various get/put methods. Previously we had an 
>> implementation strategy where a BB was 'decorated' by a subclass 
>> called ScopedBuffer - but doing so required some changes to the BB 
>> API (e.g. making certain methods non-final, so that we could decorate 
>> them). Here I use an approach (which I have discussed with Alan) 
>> which doesn't require any public API  changes, but needs to add a 
>> 'segment' field in Buffer - and then have constructors which keep 
>> track of this extra parameter.
>> * FileChannel changes - these changes are required so that we can 
>> reuse the Unmapper class from the MemorySegment implementation, to 
>> deterministically deallocate a mapped memory segment. This should be 
>> a 'straight' refactoring, no change in behavior should occur here. 
>> Please double check.
>> * VarHandles - this class now provides a factory to create memory 
>> access VarHandle - this is a bit tricky, since VarHandle cannot 
>> really be implemented outside java.base (e.g. VarForm is not public). 
>> So we do the usual trick where we define a bunch of proxy interfaces 
>> (see jdk/internal/access/foreign) have the classes in java.base refer 
>> to these - and then have the implementation classes of the memory 
>> access API implement these interfaces.
>> * JavaNIOAccess, JavaLangInvokeAccess - because of the above, we need 
>> to provide access to otherwise hidden functionalities - e.g. creating 
>> a new scoped buffer, or retrieving the properties of a memory access 
>> handle (e.g. offset, stride etc.), so that we can implement the 
>> memory access API in its own separate module
>> * GensrcVarHandles.gmk - these changes are needed to enable the 
>> generation of the new memory address var handle implementations; 
>> there's an helper class per carrier (e.g. 
>> VarHandleMemoryAddressAsBytes, ...). At runtime, when a memory access 
>> var handle is needed, we dynamically spin a new VH implementation 
>> which makes use of the right carrier. We need to spin because the VH 
>> can have a variable number of access coordinates (e.g. depending on 
>> the dimensions of the array to be accessed). But, under the hood, all 
>> the generated implementation will be using the same helper class.
>> * tests - we've tried to add fairly robust tests, often checking all 
>> possible permutations of carriers/dimensions etc. Because of that, 
>> the tests might not be the easiest to look at, but they have proven 
>> to be pretty effective at shaking out issues.
>> I think that covers the main aspects of the implementation and where 
>> it differs from vanilla JDK.
>> P.S.
>> In the CSR review [2], Joe raised a fair point - which is 
>> MemoryAddress has both:
>> offset(long) --> move address of given offset
>> offset() --> return the offset of this address in its owning segment
>> And this was considered suboptimal, given both methods use the same 
>> name but do something quite different (one is an accessor, another is 
>> a 'wither'). one obvious option is to rename the first to 
>> 'withOffset'. But I think that would lead to verbose code (since that 
>> is a very common operation). Other options are to:
>> * rename offset(long) to move(long), advance(long), or something else
>> * drop offset() - but then add an overload of MemorySegment::asSlice 
>> which takes an address instead of a plain long offset
>> I'll leave the choice to the reviewers :-)
>> Finally, I'd like to thank Mark, Brian, John, Alan, Paul, Vlad, 
>> Stuart, Roger, Joe and the Panama team for the feedback provided so 
>> far, which helped to get the API in the shape it is today.
>> Cheers
>> Maurizio
>> (**) There is one failure, for "java/util/TimeZone/Bug6329116.java" - 
>> but that is unrelated to this patch, and it's a known failing test.
>> [1] - https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/370
>> [2] - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8234050

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list