RFR(M): 8026251: New type profiling points: parameters to methods

[Christian Thalinger]

On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Roland Westrelin <roland.westrelin at oracle.com> wrote:

> Thanks for looking at this.
> 
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> Since InterpreterMacroAssembler::profile_parameters_type is basically them exact same code (except movl/neql vs. movq/negq and rdi vs. r14) can we create new files:
>> 
>> src/cpu/x86/vm/interp_masm_x86.{cpp,hpp}
>> 
>> and put the method there?  I did a quick experiment locally and there is no problem.  We should stop duplicating code.
> 
> Ok. I'll give it a try.
> 
>> 
>> src/share/vm/oops/methodData.hpp:
>> 
>> +   // Offset with the MDO for the area dedicated to
>> +   // parameters. -1 if no parameter profiling.
>> +   int _parameters_type_data_di;
>> 
>> What's "di"?  Please rename.
> 
> di is used elsewhere several times in that code together with dp.
> 
>  // Convert a dp (data pointer) to a di (data index).                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
>  int dp_to_di(address dp) const {

If you don't want to change the name then change the comment.  It's talking about an offset.  Is the data index the same as the offset?  Same scale?

> 
> Roland.
> 
>> 
>> src/share/vm/runtime/globals.hpp:
>> 
>> +           "X, Y and Z in 0->off ; 1->js292 only; 2->all methods")           \
>> 
>> Typo "js292".  Maybe use "=" instead of "->".
>> 
>> Are we printing the flag comments somewhere?  If yes, then printing this will look very odd:
>> 
>> !           "=XYZ, with Z, Type profiling of arguments at call"               \
>> !           "           Y, Type profiling of return value at call"            \
>> !           "           X, Type profiling of parameters to methods"           \
>> +           "X, Y and Z in 0->off ; 1->js292 only; 2->all methods")           \
>> 
>> Since it will be one string without new lines or spaces.  Same with this one:
>> 
>> +   product(intx, TypeProfileParmsLimit,    2,                                \
>> +           "max number of incoming parameters to consider for type profiling"\
>> +           "-1 for all")                                                     \
>> 
>> Otherwise this looks good.
>> 
>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Roland Westrelin <roland.westrelin at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Here is a new webrev with a small change. I added profile_parameters()/profile_arguments()/profile_return() methods to Compilation and GraphBuilder similarly to what is done for other profiling (profile_calls() etc.) and used them instead of calling directly MethodData::profile_parameters(). Code for profiling parameters on method entry in c1_LIRGenerator.cpp could end up trying to do the profiling even for compilations that didn't have profiling enabled because it wouldn't check compilation level.
>>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~roland/8026251/webrev.03/
>>> 
>>> Roland.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 3:39 AM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It is good. Thank you for this.
>>>> 
>>>> Vladimir
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/17/13 11:44 AM, Roland Westrelin wrote:
>>>>> Here is a new webrev with more comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~roland/8026251/webrev.02/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Roland.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/14/13 2:19 PM, Roland Westrelin wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/13 12:57 PM, Roland Westrelin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Vladimir,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comments.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I wish you added more comments to the code.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Do you want me to send another webrev?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would wait review from Christian before updating webrev.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Assembler. mdp points to array_len cell so your TypeStackSlotEntries access is off by 1.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> c1_GraphBuilder.cpp Why you need changes in args_list_for_profiling()? Why profiling parameter affects number of profiled arguments?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> To profile parameters on entry to inlined methods. The receiver is profiled as an incoming parameter so even if TypeProfileArgsLimit == TypeProfileParmsLimit, the number of arguments required for profiling is not necessarily the same for the arguments at a call and the parameters at the same call.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is next the code in profile_parameters_at_call() where Values* generated by args_list_for_profiling() are used?:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> arg = x->profiled_arg_at(i);
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Okay.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> methodData.cpp Rename args_cell to params_cell:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> +   int args_cell = ParametersTypeData::compute_cell_count(method());
>>>>>>>>>> +   if (args_cell > 0) {
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/13 4:59 AM, Roland Westrelin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The last of the series of new type profiling points.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~roland/8026251/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The output of PrintMethodData is:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> TestProfiling.m1(Ljava/lang/Object;JLjava/lang/Object;LTestProfiling$C;I)Ljava/lang/Object;
>>>>>>>>>>> interpreter_invocation_count:     5000
>>>>>>>>>>> invocation_counter:               5000
>>>>>>>>>>> backedge_counter:                    0
>>>>>>>>>>> mdo size: 444 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> parameter types                   0: stack(0) 'TestProfiling'
>>>>>>>>>>>                                  1: stack(1) 'TestProfiling$A'
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>