RFR(M): 8073866: Fix for 8064703 is not sufficient

Roland Westrelin roland.westrelin at oracle.com
Thu Mar 12 16:17:16 UTC 2015


The fix for:
causes reexecution of an allocation in case we deoptimize between a tightly coupled allocation and an arraycopy so an uninitialized array is not seen in the interpreter. That change causes 2 problems:

1) as in the test case in the webrev above, it could cause re-execution of side effects and so be visible from the application. It could even cause incorrect execution.
2) it leaves an uninitialized array in the heap. Not all GCs are robust enough to handle that.

The fix for 1) is to check for no store after the allocation. I verified that restricting the allocations to those not followed by stores don’t cause the performance regression observed in:
to come back (a regression that happened when tightly coupled allocations were disabled entirely by mistake).

The fix I propose for 2) is to move the allocation from before the guards to after the guards. Allocations considered tightly coupled follow a pattern that allows that. All other fixes I considered (doing array initialization before the uncommon traps on the slow path, doing array initialization in the uncommon trap runtime code) seemed uglier to me.

The change TestArrayCopyNoInitDeopt.java guarantees the test passes with -Xcomp and tiered enabled. -Xmixed after -Xcomp on the command line when tiered is enabled doesn’t entirely undo the effect of -Xcomp.


More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list