RFR JDK-8234049: Implementation of Memory Access API (Incubator)

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

Hi,
here's an updated version of the patch:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/panama/8234049_v2/

And a delta of the changes since last version here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/panama/8234049_v2_delta/

The javadoc has been updated inline here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/panama/memaccess_javadoc/jdk/incubator/foreign/package-summary.html

Summary of changes:

* fixed spurious protected methods in AbstractLayout and subclasses 
which leaked into API
* removed library_call.cpp changes, as these are being tracked 
separately by Vlad
* compacted ILOAD code in AddressVarHandleGenerator
* replaced uses of ++i/--i with i + 1/i - 1 in MemoryScope

I have made no changes to the *name* of the methods in the API. In fact, 
I suggest we keep a list of the names we'd like to revisit, and we 
address them all at once at the end of the review (once we're happy with 
the contents). Here's a list of the current open naming issues:

* MemoryAddress::offset() vs. MemoryAddress::offset(long) -- not much 
distance between these two semantically different operations
* MemorySegment::isAccessible() -- as the A* word is overloaded, some 
other name should be found?
* MemorySegment::acquire() -- replace with MemorySegment::fork?

Cheers
Maurizio


On 05/12/2019 21:04, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Hi,
> as part of the effort to upstream the changes related to JEP 370 
> (foreign memory access API) [1], I'd like to ask for a code review for 
> the corresponding core-libs and hotspot changes:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/panama/8234049/
>
> A javadoc for the memory access API is also available here:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/panama/memaccess_javadoc/jdk/incubator/foreign/package-summary.html 
>
>
> Note: the patch passes tier1, tier2 and tier3 testing (**)
>
>
> Here is a brief summary of the changes in java.base and hotspot (the 
> remaining new files are implementation classes and tests for the new 
> API):
>
> * ciField.cpp - this one is to trust final fields in the foreign 
> memory access implementation (otherwise VM doesn't trust memory 
> segment bounds)
>
> * Modules.gmk - these changes are needed to require that the 
> incubating module is loaded by the boot loader (otherwise the above 
> changes are useless)
>
> * library_call.cpp - this one is a JIT compiler change to treat 
> Thread.currentThread() as a well-known constant - which helps a lot in 
> the confinement checks (thanks Vlad!)
>
> * various Buffer-related changes; these changes are needed because the 
> memory access API allows a memory segment to be projected into a byte 
> buffer, for interop reasons. As such, we need to insert a liveness 
> check in the various get/put methods. Previously we had an 
> implementation strategy where a BB was 'decorated' by a subclass 
> called ScopedBuffer - but doing so required some changes to the BB API 
> (e.g. making certain methods non-final, so that we could decorate 
> them). Here I use an approach (which I have discussed with Alan) which 
> doesn't require any public API changes, but needs to add a 'segment' 
> field in Buffer - and then have constructors which keep track of this 
> extra parameter.
>
> * FileChannel changes - these changes are required so that we can 
> reuse the Unmapper class from the MemorySegment implementation, to 
> deterministically deallocate a mapped memory segment. This should be a 
> 'straight' refactoring, no change in behavior should occur here. 
> Please double check.
>
> * VarHandles - this class now provides a factory to create memory 
> access VarHandle - this is a bit tricky, since VarHandle cannot really 
> be implemented outside java.base (e.g. VarForm is not public). So we 
> do the usual trick where we define a bunch of proxy interfaces (see 
> jdk/internal/access/foreign) have the classes in java.base refer to 
> these - and then have the implementation classes of the memory access 
> API implement these interfaces.
>
> * JavaNIOAccess, JavaLangInvokeAccess - because of the above, we need 
> to provide access to otherwise hidden functionalities - e.g. creating 
> a new scoped buffer, or retrieving the properties of a memory access 
> handle (e.g. offset, stride etc.), so that we can implement the memory 
> access API in its own separate module
>
> * GensrcVarHandles.gmk - these changes are needed to enable the 
> generation of the new memory address var handle implementations; 
> there's an helper class per carrier (e.g. 
> VarHandleMemoryAddressAsBytes, ...). At runtime, when a memory access 
> var handle is needed, we dynamically spin a new VH implementation 
> which makes use of the right carrier. We need to spin because the VH 
> can have a variable number of access coordinates (e.g. depending on 
> the dimensions of the array to be accessed). But, under the hood, all 
> the generated implementation will be using the same helper class.
>
> * tests - we've tried to add fairly robust tests, often checking all 
> possible permutations of carriers/dimensions etc. Because of that, the 
> tests might not be the easiest to look at, but they have proven to be 
> pretty effective at shaking out issues.
>
> I think that covers the main aspects of the implementation and where 
> it differs from vanilla JDK.
>
> P.S.
>
> In the CSR review [2], Joe raised a fair point - which is 
> MemoryAddress has both:
>
> offset(long) --> move address of given offset
> offset() --> return the offset of this address in its owning segment
>
> And this was considered suboptimal, given both methods use the same 
> name but do something quite different (one is an accessor, another is 
> a 'wither'). one obvious option is to rename the first to 
> 'withOffset'. But I think that would lead to verbose code (since that 
> is a very common operation). Other options are to:
>
> * rename offset(long) to move(long), advance(long), or something else
> * drop offset() - but then add an overload of MemorySegment::asSlice 
> which takes an address instead of a plain long offset
>
> I'll leave the choice to the reviewers :-)
>
>
>
> Finally, I'd like to thank Mark, Brian, John, Alan, Paul, Vlad, 
> Stuart, Roger, Joe and the Panama team for the feedback provided so 
> far, which helped to get the API in the shape it is today.
>
> Cheers
> Maurizio
>
> (**) There is one failure, for "java/util/TimeZone/Bug6329116.java" - 
> but that is unrelated to this patch, and it's a known failing test.
>
> [1] - https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/370
> [2] - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8234050
>