RFR: 8287788: reuse intermediate segments allocated during FFM stub invocations [v9]

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:12:13 GMT, Matthias Ernst <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Certain signatures for foreign function calls (e.g. HVA return by value) require allocation of an intermediate buffer to adapt the FFM's to the native stub's calling convention. In the current implementation, this buffer is malloced and freed on every FFM invocation, a non-negligible overhead.
>> 
>> Sample stack trace:
>> 
>>    java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE
>> 	at jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe.allocateMemory0(java.base at 25-ea/Native Method)
>> ...
>> 	at jdk.internal.foreign.abi.SharedUtils.newBoundedArena(java.base at 25-ea/SharedUtils.java:386)
>> 	at jdk.internal.foreign.abi.DowncallStub/0x000001f001084c00.invoke(java.base at 25-ea/Unknown Source)
>> ...
>> 	at java.lang.invoke.Invokers$Holder.invokeExact_MT(java.base at 25-ea/Invokers$Holder)
>> 
>> 
>> To alleviate this, this PR remembers and reuses up to two small intermediate buffers per carrier-thread in subsequent calls.
>> 
>> Performance (MBA M3):
>> 
>> 
>> Before:
>> Benchmark                    Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  Units
>> CallOverheadByValue.byPtr    avgt   10   3.333 ? 0.152  ns/op
>> CallOverheadByValue.byValue  avgt   10  33.892 ? 0.034  ns/op
>> 
>> After:
>> Benchmark                         Mode  Cnt    Score    Error  Units
>> CallOverheadByValue.byPtr    avgt   10  3.291 ? 0.031  ns/op
>> CallOverheadByValue.byValue  avgt   10  5.464 ? 0.007  ns/op
>> 
>> 
>> `-prof gc` also shows that the new call path is fully scalar-replaced vs 160 byte/call before.
>
> Matthias Ernst has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   --unnecessary annotations

General comment - thanks for persevering, I like the new changes a lot, and I think they move things in the right direction, which is that to provide a component that can be reused for more than just this use case.

Once the issues I've outlined are addressed, I have no objection going ahead with this PR, given this looks pretty similar to what we had in mind anyway.

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23142#pullrequestreview-2566870847