RFR: JDK-8210656: Object equals abstraction for BarrierSetC2

Roman Kennke rkennke at redhat.com
Thu Sep 13 12:15:21 UTC 2018


Hi Erik,

I talked to Roland about this. It turns out that we already have this
optimization pass, and could just as well live with cmp(resolve(a),
resolve(b)). We need a little (shenandoah-specific-) hook in
CmpPNode::Ideal() for that though (but we'd need that anyway I suppose).
If you agree with that, I'll withdraw this RFR. Ok?

Roman

> Hi Roman,
> 
> Interesting. So semantically, this is cmp(resolve(a), resolve(b)), but
> you have circumstances in which the barriers are unnecessary and can be
> elided. Any of them having null in their type is one reason, but I
> suppose there are surely other reasons as well (such as finding
> dominating write barriers).
> 
> I see two different approaches for this barrier elision:
> 1) Elide it during parsing (as you propose)
> 2) Elide it during Optimize (which I think conceptually looks like a
> natural fit)
> 
> I originally proposed a function on BarrierSetC2 that I think I called
> optimize_barriers() or something like that. The idea was to use this
> hook to let GC barrier code shave off pointless (not to be confused with
> useless) barriers that can be removed. Roland thought that this seemed
> too specific to ZGC to warrant a general API, and I agreed, because
> indeed only ZGC used this hook at the time. This is today
> ZBarrierSetC2::find_dominating_barriers which is called straight from
> Optimize.
> 
> I wonder if it would make sense to re-instate that hook. Then you could
> use the existing resolve() barriers during parsing, and leave barrier
> elision tricks (null checks included, plus other tricks you might have
> up your sleeve) to Optimize. For example, you might be able to walk your
> list of barriers and disconnect these pointless barriers. What do you
> think?
> 
> Thanks,
> /Erik
> 
> On 2018-09-12 22:11, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This introduces an abstraction to deal with object equality in
>> BarrierSetC2. This is needed by GCs that can have different copies of
>> same objects alive like Shenandoah.
>>
>> The approach chosen here is slightly different than we did in e.g.
>> BarrierSetAssembler and the runtime Access API: instead of owning the
>> whole equality, it only provides a resolve-like method to resolve the
>> operands to stable values. The reason for doing this is that it's easier
>> to do this way in intrinsics if those barriers are detached from the
>> actual CmpP. This is because the barriers create new memory states, and
>> we'd have to create memphis around those things, which is considerably
>> more complex.
>>
>> I chose to add a new resolve_for_obj_equals(a, b) method instead of
>> using two calls to resolve(a); resolve(b); because this allows for
>> optimization: if any of a or b is known to be NULL, we can elide
>> barriers for both. This is not possible to do with two independent
>> resolve() calls.
>>
>> Bug:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210656
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/JDK-8210656/webrev.00/
>>
>> Testing: passes hotspot/jtreg:tier1
>>
>> What do you think about this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman
>>
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20180913/7f3bbb0f/signature.asc>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list