What's the status of / relation between "JEP 169: Value Objects" / "Value Types for Java" / "Object Layout"
volker.simonis at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 17:31:09 UTC 2015
thanks a lot for sharing your point of view.
I haven't been aware of the fact that Project Panama is also working
on similar topics (I always thought it is only about the Foreign
Function Interface and the next generation JNI). In [1,2] John Rose
nicely explains that new data layouts in the JVM heap are very well on
the agenda of Project Panama and he also mentions IBM's PackedObjects
and Gil Ten's Object Layout proposals.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Daniel Latrémolière
<daniel.latremoliere at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just want to quickly summarize my
>> current findings here and gently ask for feedback in case you think
>> I've totally misunderstood something. Of course any comments and
>> additional information is highly welcome as well.
> I don't know if that can be useful, but here is my point of view of
> developer oriented towards the question: "What feature for solving my
> problem?". This contains probably some or many errors, but it is another
> point of view (only mine), if useful.
> I will not use strictly projects/proposal list as the structure of my mail
> because content of proposal is changing and it is not my target. I am
> oriented towards the final user, i.e. the developer consuming these
> projects, not the implementer working in each of these projects.
> I will preferably split in three scopes following my perceived split of job
> between developer and runtime. The problem is data, then what can do JVM/GC
> with an object? I find two possibilities regarding this domain: move it,
> clone it.
> If JVM can clone the object, JVM can also move the object because the clone
> will not have the same address, then we have the following three features:
> 1) JVM can clone and move objects (Project Valhalla):
> Constraint: no complex constructor/no complex finalizer, because lifecycle
> of object is managed by JVM (JVM can clone, then JVM can create and destroy
> the object like JVM want). Only field affectation constructor, possibly with
> simple conversion of data format.
> Constraint: immutable, because we don't know which clone is good when one is
> modified and because modifying all clones simultaneously is
> Constraint: non-null because cloning a non-existing object is a non-existing
> Use-case "Performance": objects to clone for being closer to execution
> silicon and better parallelism (registers or cache of CPU/GPU)
> - Runtime: expose features of CPU/GPU like SIMD (mostly like a modern
> version of javax.vecmath).
> - Developer: create custom low-level structures for CPU/GPU parallel
> - Java language: small tuples, like complex numbers (immutable by
> performance choice, like SIMD, for being close to silicon; cloned at each
> pass by value).
> Use-case "Language": objects to clone for being closer to registers (in
> stack, then less allocations in heap; simpler than escape analysis)
> - Java language: multiple return values from a method (immutable because
> it's a result; cloned, by example, at the return of each delegate or not
> even created when stack-only).
> Use-case "Efficiency": others immutable non-null objects possibly concerned
> for reducing indirection/improving cache, given by specialization of
> collection classes
> - Database: primary key for Map (like HashMap)/B-Tree (like MapDB)/SQL (like
> JPA). A primary key is immutable and non-null by choice of developer, then
> possible gains.
> 2) JVM can move but not clone objects
> It's current state of Java objects:
> Constraint: developer need to define lifecycle in object, for being
> triggered by GC (constructor/finalizer) like current Java class.
> Constraint: small object, because when GC move a big object, there is
> possibly a noticeable latency.
> Constraint: usable directly only in Java code (because native code will need
> an indirection level for finding the real address of the object, changing
> after each move)
> Improvement by adding custom layout for objects (Project Panama on heap /
> Specific constraint: objects which are near identity-less, i.e. only one
> other object (the owner) know their identity/have pointer on it.
> Non-constraint: applicable to all objects types, contrary to Project
> Valhalla. Applicable to complex constructor, because complex constructor can
> be inlined in owner code where called. Applicable to mutable objects ,
> because no cloning then no incoherency. Applicable to nullable objects only
> by adding a boolean field in the custom layout for storing potential
> existence or non-existence of the inlined object, and updating code testing
> nullability for using this boolean.
> Use-case "General efficiency": Custom layout (Inline sub-object in the
> object owning it):
> - Reduce memory use with less objects then less headers and less pointers.
> - Improve cache performance with better locality (objects inlined are in
> same cache line, then no reference to follow).
> - Applicable to many fields containing reference, requiring only the
> referenced object to be invisible from all objects except one (the owner).
> By example, a private field containing an internal ArrayList (without
> getter/setter) can probably be replaced by the integer containing the used
> size and the reference to backing array, with inlining of the few methods of
> ArrayList really used.
> It need probably to be driven by developer after real profiling for finding
> best ratio between efficiency/code expansion. It will probably have much
> more use-cases when AOT will be available and developer-manageable precisely
> (Jigsaw???), because most slow work of object-code inlining and following
> optimizations can be done at AOT time, while gains will be at running time.
> Probably useful for the hottest code (JIT after this pre-optimization at AOT
> time) and clearly bad for the coldest code (interpreter then avoid code
> expansion), but very useful for the big quantity of code between, which will
> gain from AOT if complex optimizations are available. This will very
> probably require developer help/instructions/annotations using profiler data
> obtained on functional tests of application.
> 3) JVM can not move or clone objects (Project Panama off heap /
> Constraint: developer need to manage externally the full lifecycle of object
> and need to choose when creating or destroying it. Object is off-heap and an
> handle is on-heap for managing off-heap part.
> Constraint: potential fragmentation of free memory when frequently creating
> and removing objects not having the same size (taking attention to object
> size vs. page size is probably important).
> Use-case "GC Latency": big data structure inducing GC latency when moved if
> stored in heap
> - All big chunks of data, like Big Data or textures in games, etc.
> - Few number of objects for being manageable more explicitly by developer
> (without too much work).
> Use-case "Native": communicate with native library
> - Modern version of JNI
> Only my 2 cents,
More information about the valhalla-dev