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

[Roland Westrelin]

Here is new webrev:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~roland/8026251/webrev.04/

See inlined:

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.

I moved all the new profiling code to the new files.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 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:

-XX:+PrintFlagsWithComments does. I improved the formatting so that when printed it doesn't look too bad.

Roland.

> 
> !           "=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.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>