Request for review (S): 7022998: JSR 292 recursive method handle calls inline themselves infinitely

[Christian Thalinger]

On Mar 17, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> On Mar 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 6:36 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 4:25 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>> Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>> Christian,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Instead of duplicating code in several places could you factor it in one method?
>>>>>> Actually I wanted to do that but I didn't know where to put the code.  sharedRuntime?
>>>>> 
>>>>> May be a static method in CompileTask or AbstractCompiler since it is compilation information.
>>>> 
>>>> CompileTask seems suitable.  I put a couple of static methods in there and the code is much cleaner now.  I updated the webrev.
>>> 
>>> That looks better.  Can bci really be -1 here?
>>> 
>>> +   if (bci != -1)  st->print("@ %d  ", bci);
>>> +   else            st->print("@ ?  ");
>>> 
>>> Shouldn't that just be an assert that bci != -1?
>> 
>> I use bci == -1 for the native wrapper case.  I wanted to print something that indicates that the wrapper is "inlined", like:
>> 
>>  1998   9             java.lang.String::indexOf (166 bytes)
>>               n          @ ?   java.lang.System::arraycopy (static)
>> 
>> Is there a way to get the bci for such a wrapper?
> 
> Native wrappers are never inlined.  That would be a intrinsic in the output you show above.  Intrinsic inlining should always have a bci though.

Ahh, right, I mixed them.  When I'm already at it, should I change the intrinsic output too:

Inlining intrinsic _min at bci:67 in sun.nio.cs.UTF_8$Encoder::encodeArrayLoop (489 bytes)

to fit into the inlining tree?

-- Christian

> 
> tom
> 
>> 
>> -- Christian
>> 
>>> 
>>> tom
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> sharedRuntime.cpp: you removed "---" which was indication of native method wrapper compilation.
>>>>>> Is there a difference between the "n" printed in nmethod::print_compilation and the "n" printed in AdapterHandlerLibrary::create_native_wrapper?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I never saw nmethod::print_compilation using 'n' in output. But I assume it is the same.
>>>> 
>>>> So I'd say we just drop the "---" and use "n" as the indicator for a native method wrapper.
>>>> 
>>>> -- Christian
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Main fix is fine.
>>>>>> Okay.
>>>>>> -- Christian
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~twisti/7022998/
>>>>>>>> 7022998: JSR 292 recursive method handle calls inline themselves infinitely
>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by:
>>>>>>>> Methods doing recursive method handle calls, like in JRuby's
>>>>>>>> bench_fib_resursive.rb or bench_tak.rb, inline themselves infinitely.
>>>>>>>> This results in a huge method which hits compile thresholds and aborts
>>>>>>>> inlining resulting in poor performance.
>>>>>>>> The inlining logic needs to know about method handle call sites and
>>>>>>>> search the call stack for recursive calls.
>>>>>>>> This change also cleans up the PrintCompilation, PrintInlining and
>>>>>>>> TraceTypeProfile output to be aligned since the tiered compilation
>>>>>>>> changes added some additional output.
>>>>>>>> src/share/vm/c1/c1_GraphBuilder.cpp
>>>>>>>> src/share/vm/opto/bytecodeInfo.cpp
>>>>>>>> src/share/vm/opto/doCall.cpp
>>>>>>>> src/share/vm/runtime/sharedRuntime.cpp