ReflectionData space optimization in java.lang.Class (JEP-149)

[David Holmes]

Hi Peter,

We have to be careful not to disrupt the dynamics of things too much. 
Duplicate copies wastes memory but doing the replacement wastes time. If 
we could be purely memory focused then we would do anything to save 
memory, but we can't do that - we're trying to save some memory without 
being too disruptive to performance aspects. The more changes like this 
that are made the less idea we have about the impact on existing 
reflection-using applications. And we don't have any compelling use-case 
to motivate this. So I'm inclined to not take this additional step at 
this time.

Thanks,
David

On 17/12/2012 3:26 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi David, Mandy, Joel and others,
>
> I prepared the 3rd revision of the patch:
>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/101777488/jdk8-tl/JEP-149.c/webrev.03/index.html
>
> Changes from the 1st revision (disregard 2nd revision) are as follows:
>
> - The split of reflectionData() method into short fast-path and longer
> slow-path newReflectionData() as already proposed in 2nd revision of the
> patch.
> - The logic of privateGetDeclared[Fields|Methods|Constructors](boolean
> publicOnly) methods has been rewritten to eliminate caching of duplicate
> Field/Method/Constructor instances for the same field, method or
> constructor.
>
> As it turns out, the same public Member can be cached twice. One
> instance in ReflectionData.declared[Fields|Methods|Constructors] array
> and the other instance in ReflectionData.declaredPublic[Fields|Methods]
> or publicConstructors array. These arrays pairs
> (declared/declaredPublic) retain distinct instances, because they are
> obtained by separate calls to VM which always constructs new instances.
>
> The new proposed logic eliminates duplicate instances, but does not
> otherwise present any new overhead. It never requests more data from VM
> then needed at a particular moment (it may request less data from VM if
> external calls are issued in a particular order).
>
> Some applications may benefit from saved allocated space if they request
> "declared" members and "public" members on same Class instances.
>
> Here's the comparison of bytes allocated for the ReflectionData object
> in some Class instances after invoking particular reflection methods:
>
> ***
> *** Original JDK8 privateGetDeclaredXXX methods:
> ***
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: java.lang.Object.class
>
> before any calls: 0 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 192 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 192 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 1,552 bytes
> after getConstructors: 1,664 bytes
> after getFields: 1,696 bytes
> after getMethods: 2,856 bytes
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: java.lang.String.class
>
> before any calls: 704 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 2,472 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 2,472 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 10,808 bytes
> after getConstructors: 12,464 bytes
> after getFields: 12,712 bytes
> after getMethods: 21,056 bytes
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: java.util.HashMap.class
>
> before any calls: 0 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 472 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 1,328 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 5,856 bytes
> after getConstructors: 6,360 bytes
> after getFields: 6,392 bytes
> after getMethods: 9,576 bytes
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: javax.swing.JTable.class
>
> before any calls: 0 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 784 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 4,224 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 26,072 bytes
> after getConstructors: 26,792 bytes
> after getFields: 28,600 bytes
> after getMethods: 79,912 bytes
>
>
> ***
> *** With modified privateGetDeclaredXXX methods:
> ***
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: java.lang.Object.class
>
> before any calls: 0 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 192 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 192 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 1,552 bytes
> after getConstructors: 1,552 bytes
> after getFields: 1,568 bytes
> after getMethods: 1,680 bytes
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: java.lang.String.class
>
> before any calls: 0 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 1,816 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 2,368 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 10,704 bytes
> after getConstructors: 10,784 bytes
> after getFields: 10,832 bytes
> after getMethods: 12,096 bytes
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: java.util.HashMap.class
>
> before any calls: 0 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 472 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 1,328 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 5,856 bytes
> after getConstructors: 5,856 bytes
> after getFields: 5,888 bytes
> after getMethods: 7,024 bytes
>
> Deep size of ReflectionData in: javax.swing.JTable.class
>
> before any calls: 0 bytes
> after getDeclaredConstructors: 784 bytes
> after getDeclaredFields: 4,224 bytes
> after getDeclaredMethods: 26,072 bytes
> after getConstructors: 26,072 bytes
> after getFields: 27,520 bytes
> after getMethods: 62,960 bytes
>
>
> My micro-benchmarks show no performance degradations with changed
> caching logic.
>
> So what do you think, David?
>
>
> Regards, Peter
>
>
> On 12/14/2012 05:59 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 13/12/2012 10:27 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2012 11:46 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> I also found code-paths that evaluated reflectionData() method more
>>>>> than
>>>>> once for each external call. It's the methods:
>>>>>
>>>>> private Field[] privateGetDeclaredFields(boolean publicOnly)
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> private Method[] privateGetDeclaredMethods(boolean publicOnly)
>>>>>
>>>>> which are called from:
>>>>>
>>>>> private Field[] privateGetPublicFields(Set<Class<?>>
>>>>> traversedInterfaces)
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> private Method[] privateGetPublicMethods()
>>>>>
>>>>> respectively. I therefore introduced overloaded variants of the former
>>>>> methods taking a ReflectionData parameter like the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> private Field[] privateGetDeclaredFields(boolean publicOnly) {
>>>>> return privateGetDeclaredFields(publicOnly, reflectionData());
>>>>> }
>>>>> // A variant called from methods that already obtained ReflectionData
>>>>> instance
>>>>> private Field[] privateGetDeclaredFields(boolean publicOnly,
>>>>> ReflectionData<T> rd) {
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> the same for privateGetDeclaredMethods. This is not for performance
>>>>> reasons (though it might help) but for correctness. Each external call
>>>>> should be a separate "transaction" and should work on the same
>>>>> ReflectionData instance. The "transaction" is only guaranteed on the
>>>>> level of a particular java.lang.Class instance though. Some methods
>>>>> also
>>>>> invoke other Class instances (to gather inherited public methods /
>>>>> fields) and those invocations might be separate transactions in the
>>>>> face
>>>>> of concurrent class re-definitions. But we are not going to
>>>>> implement a
>>>>> database here, are we?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I don't understand the problem you are seeing here. If we find a
>>>> cached public fields, for example, we will return it. Else we start
>>>> the process of calculating anew. If someone else manages to fill in
>>>> the cache then we will get it when we call privateGetDeclaredFields.
>>>> The results are expected to be idempotent so I don't see what the
>>>> problem is.
>>>>
>>> It's true, yes. For the outside caller there is no observable
>>> difference. It can only happen that we retrieve declaredFields from a
>>> newer snapshot (say v.2) of ReflectionData and then compute publicFields
>>> and install them into an older ReflectionData instance v.1 which is
>>> already obsolete. But for the outside observer there's no difference.
>>> From performance standpoint, the additional call to reflectionData()
>>> that we save is on the slow-path so it's not worth it.
>>
>> Okay - so I'll ignore this :)
>>
>>> The split of reflectionData() into two methods does have an impact
>>> though. FWIW my micro-benchmark shows that without the split, only the
>>> following public method is observed to be faster then in the original
>>> JDK8 code:
>>>
>>> - getFields - 4x
>>>
>>> With the split of reflectionData() but without these unneeded overloaded
>>> privateGetDeclaredFields methods, the following methods are faster:
>>>
>>> - getMethods - 1.7x (1, 2 threads) ... 1x (4...32 threads)
>>> - getFields - 4x
>>> - getDeclaredConstructor - 6x ... 11x
>>> - getDeclaredMethod - 3x
>>>
>>> But for performance tests that you already initiated, it is important to
>>> note that original patch is good enough since it appears that no public
>>> method is any slower than in the original JDK8 code.
>>>
>>> Speaking of that, I don't know much about the constraints of the JIT
>>> compiler, but it seems from the results above, that it can in-line
>>> multiple levels of method calls and that the total size of the methods
>>> matter. If this is true then it might be possible to split several
>>> private methods in java.lang.Class into pairs of short fast-path and
>>> longer slow-path. Is this worth the maintenance cost?
>>
>> Method size certainly does affect inlining. Generally however we would
>> only refactor this way if we find a bottleneck that needs to be broken
>> - splitting methods adds additional meta-data overhead etc.
>>
>> As you've already done the investigation here I think the split is a
>> reasonable one to make. But I wonder in general applications how often
>> we'll even end up compiling this method.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>> Regards, Peter
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>>> I prepared some micro benchmarks for individual public methods.
>>>>> Here're
>>>>> the results:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://raw.github.com/plevart/jdk8-tl/JEP-149.c/test/reflection_data_benchmark_results_i7-2600K.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> they indicate no noticeable performance decreases. Some methods are in
>>>>> fact faster (more in-linable?):
>>>>>
>>>>> - getFields - 4x
>>>>> - getDeclaredConstructor - 4x ... 10x
>>>>> - getDeclaredMethod - 3x
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the code for micro-benchmarks:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://raw.github.com/plevart/jdk8-tl/JEP-149.c/test/src/test/ReflectionDataTest.java
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2012 11:59 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/12/12 4:31 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, no problem. So here's a patch that summarizes what I did in the
>>>>>>> previous patch, but only for reflective fields (Field[], Method[],
>>>>>>> Constructor[]) not including annotations:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/101777488/jdk8-tl/JEP-149.c/webrev/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally able to make time to review this patch. It's good work. While
>>>>>> it's good to see the synchronization issue with annotations be fixed,
>>>>>> separating the cache for reflection and annotation helps. As David
>>>>>> replied, he will take your patch and run with it for JEP-149.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The change looks good. Nit: there are several long lines
>>>>>> L2235,2244,2245,2249,2269 etc that should be broken into separate
>>>>>> lines. The remaining open question is the performance difference in
>>>>>> the reflectionData() method and how well it will be jit'ed. In the
>>>>>> common case, there is no class redefinition where
>>>>>> classCachesOnClassRedefinition() is essentially like an nop. I
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> David will look at the footprint and performance numbers as he has
>>>>>> initiated the performance testing (need to do it with this new
>>>>>> patch).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Mandy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The annotations part is unchanged semantically, but I had to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - modify private method clearCachesOnClassRedefinition to only
>>>>>>> include invalidation of annotations and declaredAnnotations
>>>>>>> fields. I
>>>>>>> also renamed it to clearAnnotationCachesOnClassRedefinition
>>>>>>> - renamed lastRedefinedCount to lastAnnotationsRedefinedCount and,
>>>>>>> since this field is now only accessed while holding a lock (from
>>>>>>> synchronized initAnnotationsIfNecessary), I removed the volatile
>>>>>>> keyword.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While looking at this unchanged part of code some more, I see other
>>>>>>> races as well. For example: two concurrent accesses to annotations
>>>>>>> combined with redefinition of a class can result in NPE. Here's a
>>>>>>> serial execution:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thread 1:
>>>>>>> getAnnotation(annotationType);
>>>>>>> initAnnotationsIfNecessary();
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VM:
>>>>>>> classRedefinedCount++;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thread 2:
>>>>>>> getAnnotation(annotationType);
>>>>>>> initAnnotationsIfNecessary();
>>>>>>> clearAnnotationCachesOnClassRedefinition();
>>>>>>> annotations = null;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thread 1:
>>>>>>> return AnnotationSupport.getOneAnnotation(annotations,
>>>>>>> annotationClass);
>>>>>>> // 'annotations' field can be null
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this needs to be fixed sooner or later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joel!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are your JSR 308 canges involving java.lang.Class too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards, Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2012 11:59 AM, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, thanks all of you that are involved in this!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with David here, lets split this up (for now) and do
>>>>>>>> reflective objects in the context of jep-149 and annotations
>>>>>>>> separately.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you may know there are even more annotation coming in with JSR
>>>>>>>> 308 annotations on type (use), so I want to complete that work
>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>> and then do the effort of reducing contention and overhead for both
>>>>>>>> type and regular annotations and also fixing up the behaviour for
>>>>>>>> redefine/retransform class.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One other point to consider is that some of the fields in
>>>>>>>> java/lang/reflect/ classes are known by the VM so not all
>>>>>>>> changes in
>>>>>>>> Java-land are actually doable. Glancing over your patches very
>>>>>>>> quickly I don't think you have done anything to upset the VM, but
>>>>>>>> then I am not an expert in this area.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, with the VM permgen changes we might have to rethink our
>>>>>>>> assumptions in order to reduce total overhead. For example as I
>>>>>>>> understand it previously we could just ship the same pointer into
>>>>>>>> permgen for the annotations arrays, now that isn't possible so we
>>>>>>>> create a new copy of the array for every Field/Method/Constructor
>>>>>>>> instance. Perhaps there is some clever way of eliminating those
>>>>>>>> copies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So while I think your patches generally makes sense, I think it is
>>>>>>>> prudent to delay this for annotations until all our new annotation
>>>>>>>> features are in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>> /Joel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:18 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delay on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Generally your VolatileData and my ReflectionHelper are doing a
>>>>>>>>> similar job. But I agree with your reasoning that all of the
>>>>>>>>> cached
>>>>>>>>> SoftReferences are likely to be cleared at once, and so a
>>>>>>>>> SoftReference to a helper object with direct references, is more
>>>>>>>>> effective than a direct reference to a helper object with
>>>>>>>>> SoftReferences. My initial stance with this was very conservative
>>>>>>>>> as the more change that is introduced the more uncertainty
>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>> about the impact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I say the above primarily because I think, if I am to proceed with
>>>>>>>>> this, I will need to separate out the general reflection caching
>>>>>>>>> changes from the annotation changes. There are a number of reasons
>>>>>>>>> for this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, I'm not at all familiar with the implementation of
>>>>>>>>> annotations at the VM or Java level, and the recent changes in
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> area just exacerbate my ignorance of the mechanics. So I don't
>>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>> qualified to evaluate that aspect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, the bulk of the reflection caching code is simplified by
>>>>>>>>> the fact that due to current constraints on class redefinition the
>>>>>>>>> caching is effectively idempotent for fields/methods/constructors.
>>>>>>>>> But that is not the case for annotations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally, the use of synchronization with the annotations method is
>>>>>>>>> perplexing me. I sent Joe a private email on this but I may as
>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> raise it here - and I think you have alluded to this in your
>>>>>>>>> earlier emails as well: initAnnotationsIfNecessary() is a
>>>>>>>>> synchronized instance method but I can not find any other code in
>>>>>>>>> the VM that synchronizes on the Class object's monitor. So if this
>>>>>>>>> synchronization is trying to establish consistency in the face of
>>>>>>>>> class redefinition, I do not see where class redefinition is
>>>>>>>>> participating in the synchronization!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what I would like to do is take your basic VolatileData part of
>>>>>>>>> the patch and run with it for JEP-149 purposes, while separating
>>>>>>>>> the annotations issue so they can be dealt with by the experts in
>>>>>>>>> that particular area.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry it has taken so long to arrive at a fairly negative
>>>>>>>>> position, but I need someone else to take up the annotations
>>>>>>>>> gauntlet and run with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>