Potential scheduling problem with compressed Oops.

[Tom Rodriguez]

On May 3, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> we are working on a port of HotSpot for ia64.  Currently, we 
> enable this port to support compressed Oops.
> 
> I ran into an issue where a Decode node was moved above a safepoint
> by the scheduler.  A precedence edge was missing to force the node 
> behind the safepoint.

Can you describe in more detail why this causes a problem?  In general DecodeN and EncodeP can safely span safepoints as long as the anti-deps of their inputs are respected.

tom


> This edge can easily be added if ComputeRegisterAntidependencies()
> not only considers AddP in this code: 
> 
>     2627     if( n->jvms() ) {           // Precedence edge from derived to safept
>     2628       // Check if last_safept_node was moved by pinch-point insertion in anti_do_use()
>     2629       if( b->_nodes[last_safept] != last_safept_node ) {
>     2630         last_safept = b->find_node(last_safept_node);
>     2631       }
>     2632       for( uint j=last_safept; j > i; j-- ) {
>     2633         Node *mach = b->_nodes[j];
>     2634         if( mach->is_Mach() && mach->as_Mach()->ideal_Opcode() == Op_AddP )
>     2635           mach->add_prec( n );
>     2636       }
>     2637       last_safept = i;
>     2638       last_safept_node = m;
>     2639     }
> 
> So I changed the code here to test for Op_DecodeN and our problem 
> disappeared.  
> I want to share this information as I think this can happen on other 
> platforms, too.  And it was pretty hard to track down.
> We extended the scheduler to consider several blocks, increasing the
> situations where nodes can be moved past Safepoints.  But I assume,
> a suiting dataflow graph can appear on other platforms, too.  Or is 
> there a constraint I missed?
> 
> Regards,
>  Goetz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>