RFR: 8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format [v8]

[Justin Lu]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:00:33 GMT, lingjun-cg <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> ### Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format
>> From the output of perf, we can see the hottest regions contain atomic instructions.  But when run with JDK 11, there is no such problem. The reason is the removed biased locking.  
>> The DecimalFormat uses StringBuffer everywhere, and StringBuffer itself contains many synchronized methods.
>> So I added support for some new methods that accept StringBuilder which is lock-free.
>> 
>> ### Benchmark testcase
>> 
>> @BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
>> @Warmup(iterations = 5, time = 500, timeUnit = TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
>> @Measurement(iterations = 10, time = 500, timeUnit = TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
>> @State(Scope.Thread)
>> @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
>> public class JmhDecimalFormat {
>> 
>>     private DecimalFormat format;
>> 
>>     @Setup(Level.Trial)
>>     public void setup() {
>>         format = new DecimalFormat("#0.00000");
>>     }
>> 
>>     @Benchmark
>>     public void testNewAndFormat() throws InterruptedException {
>>         new DecimalFormat("#0.00000").format(9524234.1236457);
>>     }
>> 
>>     @Benchmark
>>     public void testNewOnly() throws InterruptedException {
>>         new DecimalFormat("#0.00000");
>>     }
>> 
>>     @Benchmark
>>     public void testFormatOnly() throws InterruptedException {
>>         format.format(9524234.1236457);
>>     }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> ### Test result
>> #### Current JDK before optimize
>> 
>>  Benchmark                             Mode  Cnt    Score   Error  Units
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnly       avgt   50  642.099 ? 1.253  ns/op
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat     avgt   50  989.307 ? 3.676  ns/op
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly          avgt   50  303.381 ? 5.252  ns/op
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> #### Current JDK after optimize
>> 
>> Benchmark                          Mode  Cnt    Score   Error  Units
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnly    avgt   50  351.499 ? 0.761  ns/op
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat  avgt   50  615.145 ? 2.478  ns/op
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly       avgt   50  209.874 ? 9.951  ns/op
>> 
>> 
>> ### JDK 11 
>> 
>> Benchmark                          Mode  Cnt    Score   Error  Units
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testFormatOnly    avgt   50  364.214 ? 1.191  ns/op
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewAndFormat  avgt   50  658.699 ? 2.311  ns/op
>> JmhDecimalFormat.testNewOnly       avgt   50  248.300 ? 5.158  ns/op
>
> lingjun-cg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   8333396: Performance regression of DecimalFormat.format

> If not that, throw a StackOverflowException when run with DecimalFormat.format(double)

I'm not sure I understand this point.

I think this is on the right track and looks much better with the generic implementation.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/text/ChoiceFormat.java line 561:

> 559:             toAppendTo.append(choiceFormats[i]);
> 560:         } catch (IOException ioe) {
> 561:             throw new UncheckedIOException(ioe.getMessage(), ioe);

Perhaps `AssertionError` instead of `UncheckedIOException` is better suited here and in the other ocurrences.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/text/Format.java line 278:

> 276:      *         {@code false} otherwise
> 277:      */
> 278:     boolean isInternalSubclass() {

Since this is defined in Format, can we apply similar changes of StringBuilder formatting to the other Format subclasses beyond just NumberFormat.

For example, in DateFormat, something such as,


<T extends Appendable & CharSequence> T formatWithGeneric(Date date,
                                                   T toAppendTo,
                                                   FieldPosition pos) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Subclasses should override this method");
}

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19513#pullrequestreview-2126447188
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19513#discussion_r1645029030
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19513#discussion_r1645026453