[lworld] Handling of missing ValueTypes attributes

Karen Kinnear karen.kinnear at oracle.com
Wed Jul 11 19:42:53 UTC 2018


Ioi, Tobias,

You asked a good question about MethodHandle and Reflection. I also checked out JNI. This is my understanding - please correct me
if my assumptions are inaccurate.

Here are my assumptions about when we need value type consistency
1. verifier - mismatches between bytecodes and type (within a classfile, no load/check for actual value type)
2. JIT performance optimizations
    2a. flattening in containers - flattenable fields and array - require check of value type vs. ACTUAL loaded type
          - this is easy, we preload types

    2b. JIT scalarization of field access - must be an ACTUAL value type and must be flattenable
       This will only work for fields that the JIT’d caller believes are value types, the declarer believes are value types and the declarer does an ACTUAL check
       Need caller-callee agreement for a JIT’d caller.

    2c. JIT calling convention - scalarization of arguments
       Need either the caller-callee in agreement if both compiled OR
       For caller calls by reference, adapter that can scalarize arguments it knows are ACTUAL value types
       Today adaptor is created at callee link time, so we explicitly load types in local methods in the ValueTypes attribute so they can be scalarized
  
     2d. JIT returning a value type
        I do not know our plans for value type return optimizations.
        The adaptor for returns are stored off of the return type, so they know the ACTUAL value.
        In general we can check caller-callee consistency so we can be in agreement about whether a type is a value type.
        The exception is the JavaCalls::call_helper path used by Reflection, jni (and others internally)
            - I assume we will always return a reference here (I have not studied the details yet, so I don’t know where that is handled)
        
Details:
1. MethodHandles - invocation and field access always goes through LinkResolver at this point.
There are two exceptions here:
    - one is when the MethodHandle creation does NOT pass in the calling class information
      - in that case there is no check for caller-callee consistency, we need to look at this independently
    - one is invokespecial indirect superclass (ACC_SUPER) which performs selection in the java code.
       - That is a rathole I won’t follow here - we should fix that anyway - multiple potential approaches.

2. Reflection:
   optimized reflection generates bytecodes, so goes through bytecode path, so goes through LinkResolver.
   initial reflection calls JavaCalls::call->JavaCalls::call_helper

3. JNI:
   also goes through JavaCalls::call_helper

JavaCalls::call_helper calls call_stub to invoke the entry_point which is:
   normally: method->from_interpreted_entry
   debug: method->interpreter_entry

For argument passing, my assumption is that we are ok with the JavaCalls::call_helper path because it always passes by reference
and uses the callee adapter from interpreter which knows the declared value types that can be scalarized. So the same adaptor that works for
interpreted code works for call_helper where the caller always assumes everything is a reference and passes by reference.

JIT folks - does this work in practice?

thanks,
Karen



> Thanks Karen for the explanation. I think it will simplify my patch for JDK-8206140 [lworld] Move return value null checks into the callee.
> 
> If I understand correctly, this means that when we try to resolve a ClassRef, FieldRef, MethodRef, ..., in the constant pool, and there's a cross-class mismatch of ValueType, the constant pool entry will fail to resolve, and an ICCE will be thrown.
> 
> This means the compiler should never see a mismatched cross-class reference. For example,
> 
> class ClassB {
>     void foo(Point p) {
>          ClassA.m1(p);  // ....., invokestatic MethodRef #4 = ClassA.m1:"(LPoint;)V"
>     }
> }
> 
> When foo is compiled, the compiler will see that the constant pool entry MethodRef #4 is unresolved. Thus, the compiler will generate an uncommon trap and let the interpreter handle it. The interpreter will try to resolve #4 again, resulting in an ICCE.
> 
> BTW, value-types-consistency-checking-details.pdf doesn't mention MethodHandle and Reflection explicitly. However, I assume that the same set of rules applies as well?
> 
> Thanks
> - Ioi
> 
>> From an execution perspective, we would like to ensure that neither ClassC nor ClassA can get their hands on an instance of Point, so
>> we are only passing null here. Tried to close all of these holes - could use review. Note to John - consistency checking for array elements
>> relative to ValueTypes attribute is part of closing this hole, i.e. ensuring that a class that has the wrong information about whether a type
>> is a value type can not get their hands on an instance of that value type.
>> 
>> Does this make sense for LW1?
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Karen
>> 
>> p.s. Frederic checked in round 1 of the consistency checking - but did not get round 2 in before he left for vacation. He is out this
>> week and the next. I attached his patch out for review if you want to use it to test with to see if that helps the compiler. He will be back I
>> believe the 23rd. I will check with Harold on Frederic’s verifier question - we may want to push this (without perhaps the new test) before
>> he gets back so you can use it.
>> 
>> Note - John asked for some refactoring - given how tight the time is before EA and the vacation schedule - that will be a postlw1 rfe.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> <mailto:tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi John,
>>> 
>>> On 10.07.2018 02:08, John Rose wrote:
>>>> On Jul 9, 2018, at 3:44 PM, Ioi Lam <ioi.lam at oracle.com> <mailto:ioi.lam at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> In that case, I think the program's output should be the same as if the ValueTypes attribute had been present, although performance may differ (slower, more heap allocations, etc).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is this understanding correct?
>>>> Yes, that is correct.  This model is intended to make it easier for old-school classfiles
>>>> to link to old types which have (over time) been upgraded to value types.
>>> How do we then handle the following scenario?
>>> 
>>> We have a method m1(MyValue vt) in a class that has no value types attribute set although MyValue is
>>> a value type. Once the calling convention for that method is determined (i.e. at adapter creation),
>>> we therefore don't know that MyValue is a value type and as a result, m1 will expect vt to be passed
>>> as oop.
>>> 
>>> Now another compiled method m2 that calls compiled m1 might be well aware that vt is a value type
>>> but has no way to know that m1 does *not* expect vt to be passed as fields (especially if the call
>>> is virtual).
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tobias
> 



More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list