RFR JDK-8022442: Fix unchecked warnings in HashMap

[Brent Christian]

Hi,

I did a before/after run with the changes using Doug Lea's MapCheck 
microbenchmark [1].  I tested java.util.HashMap with Object, String, and 
Integer types.

It should be mentioned this was a quick check for any major performance 
changes: 2 iterations, run by hand on my own (relatively quiet) Mac. 
The changes are small.  (A more serious run would be needed to 
accurately measure such a small performance difference, ideally using 
jmh, and a benchmark with more precise scoring.)

A brief summary of the scoring differences is below, by type of access 
and data type.  The benchmark scores are based on the length of time to 
perform the operation, so a lower score is better, and a positive 
percent change means the operation took longer with the warnings cleanup 
changes.

---
MapCheck, java.util.HashMap, trials: 1000, size: 36864
%Change No Changes vs HashMap Warnings Cleanup

                      Object        String          Integer
Access Present       0.00%         0.00%           6.67%
Add Absent           0.00%         0.76%          -1.27%
Modify Present       0.00%        -1.16%           0.00%
Remove Present       0.00%         0.00%           0.00%
Search Absent        0.00%         2.00%           3.03%
Traverse entry       0.00%         0.00%           0.00%
Traverse key/val     0.00%         2.86%           0.00%
---

One might think the 6.6% increase for Access Present/Integer is cause 
for concern, but I think this is more a reflection of the scores being 
fairly coarse.  Specifically, the two scores before the changes were 15 
& 15, and with the changes were 15 & 17 (a mean of 16, 6.67% change from 
15).

I think the change is fine to go back.

For reference, my spreadsheet of results is at [2].

Thanks,
-Brent

[1] 
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/test/loops/MapCheck.java
[2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8022442/

On 8/6/13 3:23 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/2013 11:11 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> Please review this warnings cleanup.
>>>
>>> Bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8022442 (not yet visible)
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/8022442/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> —Dan
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>> I've seen that you have introduce a common super interface for entry and tree node,
>> I suppose that  you check that there is no performance regression.
>> I wonder if an abstract class is not better than an interface because as far as I know
>> CHA implemented in hotspot doesn't work on interface
>> (but I may be wrong, there is perhaps a special optimization for arrays).
>
> To make sure I understand: your concern is that an aastore will be more expensive when assigning to a KeyValueData[] than to an Object[] (or even to SomeOtherClass[])?
>
> For what it's worth, all assignments to table[i] are statically known to be safe.  E.g.:
>
> Entry<K,V> next = (Entry<K,V>) e.next;
> ...
> table[i] = next;
>
> So surely a smart VM only does the check once?
>
> Here are some other things that might be concerns, but don't apply here:
> - interface method invocations: there are no methods in the interface to invoke
> - checkcast to an interface: all the casts are to concrete classes (Entry, TreeBin, TreeNode)
>
> (There are some unchecked casts from KeyValueData to KeyValueData with different type parameters, but I assume these don't cause any checkcasts.)
>
> —Dan
>