Valhalla EG meeting notes Sep 12 2018
forax at univ-mlv.fr
Thu Sep 13 09:09:51 UTC 2018
[Switching back to valhalla-spec-experts]
----- Mail original -----
> De: "Tobias Hartmann" <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>
> À: "valhalla-dev" <valhalla-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Septembre 2018 09:33:19
> Objet: Re: Valhalla EG meeting notes Sep 12 2018
> [Switching from valhalla-spec-experts to valhalla-dev]
> Just wanted to add my 2 cents to the JIT part of this discussion:
> On 13.09.2018 00:22, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>> Frederic: LW1 uses NO boxes today. JIT could not optimize boxes, can we consider
>> a model without boxes?
>> Brian: MVT, L&Q signatures were messy with boxes. With LWorld all those problems
>> go away.
>> Frederic: Question of the number of types in the vm.
>> Remi: Two types in the language level and 1 in VM.
>> Karen: Goal of this exercise is:
>> 1) user model requirements to support erased generics - requires null and
>> null-free references to value types
>> 2) JIT optimizations in general for value types (not for erased generics, but in
>> general code and in future in reified generics) - depend on null-free
>> Our goal: minimal user model disruption for maximal JIT optimization.
> As explained below, for the JIT it would be optimal to be able to statically
> (i.e. at compile time)
> distinguish between nullable and null-free value types. We could then emit
> highly optimized code for
> null-free value types and fall back to java.lang.Object performance (or even
> better) for nullable
> value types.
>> The way I read your email Remi - I thought you had user model disruption, but no
>> information passed to the JIT, so no optimization benefit.
>> Remi: If inlining, the JIT has enough information.
Let me clarify because during that part of the conf call both me and Frederic were not on the same planet.
Here, i was talking about a strategy to implement nullable value type at the language level, this is neither a discussion about implementing non nullable value type in the language nor a discussion about implementing non nullable value type in the VM.
This strategy is named "Always null-free value types" in latest Dan Smith email, again it's "null free value types" from the language POV, not the VM POV.
> Yes but even with aggressive inlining, we still need null checks/filtering at
> the "boundaries" to be
> able to optimize (scalarize) nullable value types:
> - Method entry with value type arguments
> - Calls of methods returning a value type
> - Array stores/loads
> - Field stores/loads
> - Loading a value type with a nullable (non-flattenable) field
> - Checkcast to a value tyoe
> - When inlining method handle intrinsics through linkTo and casting Object
> arguments to value type
> - OSR entry with a live value type
> - Every place where we can see constant NULL for a value type in the bytecodes
> - Some intrinsics
yes, for non nullable value type, for nullable value type the idea is to erase them to Object (or their first super interface).
>> Frederic: Actually with field and method signatures it makes a huge difference
>> in potential JIT optimizations.
> Yes, it would make above null filtering unnecessary for null-free value types.
>> Remi: Erased generics should have ok performance
>> Frederic: We are talking about performance without generics - we want full
>> optimization there.
Here, you can see the mis-communication issue in plain sight, Frederic is thinking about the semantics of non nullable value types in the VM.
>> Remi: what happens in LW1 if you send null to a value type generic parameter?
>> Frederic: LW1 supports nullable value types. We want to guarantee/enforce
>> null-free vs. nullable distinction in the vm.
>> Remi: there are two kinds of entry points in the JIT’d code
>> Frederic: 2: i2c which does null checks and if null calls the interpreter, c2c -
>> disallows nulls.
>> editor’s note: did you get the implication - if we see a null, you are stuck in
>> the interpreter today because we all rely on dynamic checks.
> Yes, that's an important point.
>> Remi: For the vm, if you have a real nullable VT JIT can optimize/deopt/reopt
>> Frederic: this is brittle, lots of work, and uncertain
yes, i fully agree with Frederic, i can live with non first class support of nullable value type in the VM.
> That's what we currently have with LW1. Although the language exposure is
> limited by javac, null
> value types are *fully* supported in the VM/JIT but with a huge performance
> impact. We deoptimize
> when encountering NULL but do not attempt to re-compile without scalarization.
> We could do that, but
> that would mean that whenever you (accidentally) introduce NULL into your
> well-written, highly
> optimized value type code, performance will drop significantly and stay at that
The fact that LW1 do nullcheck for value type is something independent in my opinion, we need these nullcheck for migration and not necessarily for supporting nullable value type.
> Of course, there are ways to optimize this even without null-free value types.
> For example by
> profiling and speculation on nullness. Or by having two compiled versions of the
> same method, one
> that supports nullable value types by passing them as pointers (no
> deoptimization) and one that
> scalarizes null-free value types to get peek performance.
> But as Frederic mentioned, these approaches are limited, complex and the gain is
> uncertain. It's
> maybe similar to escape analysis: We might be able to improve performance under
> certain conditions
> but it's very limited. I think the whole point of value types is performance, so
> we should try to
> get that right.
Technically it's better than "plain" escape analysis because there is no identity so you can re-box only at the edges.
Anyway, there is a bigger issue, as John said, it means you have to support a really weird semantics for method call because each parameter type which is a value type can be null or not, so if you want to specialize on that it means you have a combinatorial explosion of all the possibilities (2 pow n with n the number of value type in the parameter list), you can try to be lazy on that but if you think in term of vtable a method will have to support it's own specialization + all the specializations of the overriden methods.
> To summarize: If we just need to support null value types and are fine with null
> screwing up performance and having weird side effects, we are basically done today. If null
> value types need to perform well (i.e. similar to j.l.Object), optimally we would need to be able to
> statically distinguish between nullable and null-free value types.
As i said above, i'm fine with the current semantics of non nullable value type in the VM because if we have a null that appears it's because of separate compilation/migration.
I like your last sentence, because it's the whole point of the strategy to erase nullable value type in Java to Object in the classfile, a nullable value type will perform as well as java.lang.Object so instead of trying to introduce a way to denote nullable value type in the classfile, let's erase nullable value type as Object.
Obviously, i'm lying here because if you erase something to Object, you need a supplementary cast and when you erase something you can have method signature clash so it a trade off but the advantage of this proposal is that the VM doesn't have to bother to understood nullable value type and having a simple JVM spec is a HUGE win.
>> Remi: VM does not want nullable value types
>> Frederic: VM wants to be able to distinguish null-free vs. nullable value types,
>> so for null-free we can optimize like qtypes and fo nullable, we can get back to
>> Object performance.
> Yes, exactly.
Both sentences are true :)
Those are different strategies.
> Best regards,
More information about the valhalla-spec-experts