RFR: 6983726: Reimplement MethodHandleProxies.asInterfaceInstance [v25]

[Jorn Vernee]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:22:58 GMT, Chen Liang <liach at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> As John Rose has pointed out in this issue, the current j.l.r.Proxy based implementation of MethodHandleProxies.asInterface has a few issues:
>> 1. Exposes too much information via Proxy supertype (and WrapperInstance interface)
>> 2. Does not allow future expansion to support SAM[^1] abstract classes
>> 3. Slow (in fact, very slow)
>> 
>> This patch addresses all 3 problems:
>> 1. It updates the WrapperInstance methods to take an `Empty` to avoid method clashes
>> 2. This patch obtains already generated classes from a ClassValue by the requested interface type; the ClassValue can later be updated to compute implementation generation for abstract classes as well.
>> 3. This patch's faster than old implementation in general.
>> 
>> Benchmark for revision 17:
>> 
>> Benchmark                                                          Mode  Cnt      Score       Error  Units
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.baselineAllocCompute               avgt   15      1.503 ±     0.021  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.baselineCompute                    avgt   15      0.269 ±     0.005  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.testCall                           avgt   15      1.806 ±     0.018  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.testCreate                         avgt   15     17.332 ±     0.210  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.testCreateCall                     avgt   15     19.296 ±     1.371  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callDoable                     avgt    5      0.419 ±     0.004  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callHandle                     avgt    5      0.421 ±     0.004  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callInterfaceInstance          avgt    5      1.731 ±     0.018  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callLambda                     avgt    5      0.418 ±     0.003  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantDoable                 avgt    5      0.263 ±     0.003  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantHandle                 avgt    5      0.262 ±     0.002  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantInterfaceInstance      avgt    5      0.262 ±     0.002  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantLambda                 avgt    5      0.267 ±     0.019  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.direct                         avgt    5      0.266 ±     0.013  ns/op
>> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCreate.createCallInterfaceInstance  avgt    5     18.057 ±     0.182 ...
>
> Chen Liang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Review changees

test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandleProxies/WrapperHiddenClassTest.java line 165:

> 163:                 () -> "incorrect dynamic module name: " + implModule.getName());
> 164: 
> 165:         assertSame(implClass.getClassLoader(), implModule.getClassLoader(),

I think this should check against `ifaceModule.getClassLoader()` instead, right? Since the dynamic module is defined in the interface' class loader.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#discussion_r1265676425