RFR: 6983726: Reimplement MethodHandleProxies.asInterfaceInstance [v18]
Mandy Chung
mchung at openjdk.org
Wed Jun 28 19:00:13 UTC 2023
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:33:11 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 with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 38 commits:
>
> - SecurityManager fixed, minimize changes
> - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface
> - Some changes per Mandy's review. SecurityManager test fails in this patch
> - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface
> - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface
> - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface
> - stage, needs to fix is mh proxy instance check
> - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface
> - Remove assertion, no longer true with teleport definition in MHP
> - Fix tabs, and tests about modules and constructor access
> - ... and 28 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/05e9c41e...07cc1279
Thanks for the update.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandleProxies.java line 481:
> 479: MethodHandle originalTypeField;
> 480: try {
> 481: originalTypeField = new Lookup(type).findStaticGetter(type, ORIGINAL_TYPE_NAME, Class.class);
If some random class `X` has the field "originalType" with value `I`, `isWrapperClass` would cause spinning a MH proxy class `I` as it calls `getProxyClassInfo` and return true. `getProxyClassInfo` should be only called from `asInterfaceInstance`.
I think this can be done by having a `WeakHashMap<Class<?>, Boolean>` and `getProxyClassInfo` puts an entry with `TRUE` when a new proxy class is generated.
test/jdk/java/lang/reflect/Proxy/ProxyModuleMapping.java line 42:
> 40: // unnamed module gets access to sun.invoke package (e.g. via --add-exports)
> 41: new ProxyModuleMapping(sun.invoke.WrapperInstance.class).test();
> 42:
The test case is to verify that proxy can access qualified exports. So better to keep this test case and replace with an internal interface e.g. `jdk.internal.misc.VM.BufferPool`?
-------------
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#pullrequestreview-1503496814
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#discussion_r1245624265
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#discussion_r1245462594
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list