RFR(S) 8029302: Performance regression in Math.pow intrinsic
Niclas Adlertz
niclas.adlertz at oracle.com
Thu Apr 24 09:06:00 UTC 2014
Yes, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~adlertz/JDK-8029302/webrev01/
I only removed:
region_node->init_req(2, if_false);
Kind Regards,
Niclas Adlertz
On 04/23/2014 07:21 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> On 4/23/14 4:07 AM, Niclas Adlertz wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> > Next line is not needed, this edge will be initialized later:
>> >
>> > region_node->init_req(2, if_false);
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > And I am not sure that you should skip result check:
>> >
>> > if (result != result)? {
>> > result = uncommon_trap() or runtime_call();
>> > }
>> As I understand it, the reason why we have this check is to see if the
>> fast_pow() intrinsic computed a NaN result where we expected a non-NaN
>> result.
>>
>> This can happen in two cases as I see it;
>> 1. When x < 0.0
>> 2. When x = NaN and y == 0.
>>
>> The first case will never happen, since we never call fast_pow with x <
>> 0.0.
>> The second case we could do a special case for, as you mentioned in your
>> previous mail. (x**0 = 1)
>
> Based on your explanations current check placement is good. We will not
> need it for (x**0 = 1) too.
>
>>
>> There might be more cases when fast_pow() can return a NaN result (where
>> we expect a non-NaN result) which I haven't spotted. If not, we could
>> add a special case for x**0 and move the check of NaN in the end to
>> inside the else body inside:
>> if (x <= 0.0) {
>> long longy = (long)y;
>> if ((double)longy == y) { // if y is long
>> if (y + 1 == y) longy = 0; // huge number: even
>> result = ((1&longy) == 0)?-DPow(abs(x), y):DPow(abs(x), y);
>> } else {
>> // move result != result check here
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> Lets consider this when we add additional optimization.
>
>> I believe we currently do excessive checking of NaN.
>> NaN**y where y != 0 should result in NaN, fast_pow() will return NaN
>> here. Despite this, we will still do the result != result check, it will
>> be true and we will do a call to the runtime.
>
> Since NaN is an edge case it may not be a matter for now. But I agree
> that we can add a check x == NaN and call runtime immediately before
> calling fast_pow(). If it does not affect much performance (it is
> additional branch) we should go for this change.
>
>>
>> In the case of x**2, I don't see how we can create a non expected NaN
>> result, since the only way we can get a NaN result is NaN**2, which
>> should result in NaN anyway.
>
> Agree.
>
> Do you have latest webrev?
>
> Vladimir
>
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Niclas Adlertz
>>
>> On 04/17/2014 04:14 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> About your changes.
>>>
>>> Next line is not needed, this edge will be initialized later:
>>>
>>> region_node->init_req(2, if_false);
>>>
>>> And I am not sure that you should skip result check:
>>>
>>> if (result != result)? {
>>> result = uncommon_trap() or runtime_call();
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 4/17/14 8:45 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>> Niclas,
>>>>
>>>> Looking on __ieee754_pow() in sharedRuntimeTrans.cpp and it has other
>>>> simple cases:
>>>>
>>>> x**0 = 1
>>>> x**1 = x
>>>> x**-1 = 1/x
>>>> x**0.5 = sqrt(x)
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice to know which are frequently used and implement them
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>> Also there is check for NaN before all this cases except x**0 = 1:
>>>>
>>>> /* +-NaN return x+y */
>>>>
>>>> You need to test that new C2 code produces the same results for NaN
>>>> values.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vladimir
>>>>
>>>> On 4/17/14 3:10 AM, Niclas Adlertz wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~adlertz/JDK-8029302/webrev00/
>>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029302
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a performance regression in Math.pow(x,2) on x64, starting
>>>>> from 7u40.
>>>>> In 7u40 we replaced a call to SharedRuntime::dpow with an intrinsic
>>>>> for Math.pow. This is faster in almost all cases,
>>>>> except for Math.pow(x,2). (See comments in bug report for more info.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I have added a C2 IR check for Math.pow(x,y) when y == 2, and instead
>>>>> of calling SharedRuntime::dpow when y == 2, I
>>>>> directly do x * x.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've changed the generated C2 IR,
>>>>>
>>>>> From (psuedo code):
>>>>>
>>>>> if (x <= 0.0) {
>>>>> long longy = (long)y;
>>>>> if ((double)longy == y) { // if y is long
>>>>> if (y + 1 == y) longy = 0; // huge number: even
>>>>> result = ((1&longy) == 0)?-DPow(abs(x), y):DPow(abs(x), y);
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> result = NaN;
>>>>> }
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> result = DPow(x,y);
>>>>> }
>>>>> if (result != result)? {
>>>>> result = uncommon_trap() or runtime_call();
>>>>> }
>>>>> return result;
>>>>>
>>>>> To (psuedo code):
>>>>>
>>>>> if (y == 2) {
>>>>> return x * x;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> if (x <= 0.0) {
>>>>> long longy = (long)y;
>>>>> if ((double)longy == y) { // if y is long
>>>>> if (y + 1 == y) longy = 0; // huge number: even
>>>>> result = ((1&longy) == 0)?-DPow(abs(x), y):DPow(abs(x), y);
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> result = NaN;
>>>>> }
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> result = DPow(x,y);
>>>>> }
>>>>> if (result != result)? {
>>>>> result = uncommon_trap() or runtime_call();
>>>>> }
>>>>> return result;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I have run jtreg tests in jdk/tests/java/lang (with -server, -Xcomp
>>>>> and -XX:-TieredCompilation) and run JPRT. No
>>>>> problems encountered.
>>>>> In particular, java/lang/Math/PowTests passes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I re-wrote the performance test included in the bug report
>>>>> (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/attachment/17807/Main.java)
>>>>> to a JMH test;
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~adlertz/JDK-8029302/webrev00/MyBenchmark.java
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Below are the performance results. The x^2 case is now much faster
>>>>> even compared to 7u25. (Since we now skip the call to
>>>>> SharedRuntime::dpow)
>>>>>
>>>>> Numbers from 7u25 b34:
>>>>> Iteration 1: 46764.923 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 2: 46695.196 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 3: 46647.386 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 4: 46806.854 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 5: 46787.259 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 6: 46788.196 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 7: 46797.500 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 8: 46784.237 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 9: 46782.717 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 10: 46790.678 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 11: 46785.139 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 12: 46798.346 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 13: 46784.595 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 14: 46770.963 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 15: 46789.574 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 16: 46822.452 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 17: 46813.571 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 18: 46747.076 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 19: 46774.254 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 20: 46779.329 ops/ms
>>>>>
>>>>> Result : 46775.512 ±(99.9%) 34.788 ops/ms
>>>>> Statistics: (min, avg, max) = (46647.386, 46775.512, 46822.452),
>>>>> stdev = 40.061
>>>>> Confidence interval (99.9%): [46740.725, 46810.300]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Numbers from 7u40 b34:
>>>>> Iteration 1: 9966.052 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 2: 9967.683 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 3: 9967.229 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 4: 9967.266 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 5: 9937.091 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 6: 9966.272 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 7: 9964.679 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 8: 9966.326 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 9: 9964.899 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 10: 9966.920 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 11: 9963.278 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 12: 9967.334 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 13: 9963.351 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 14: 9968.032 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 15: 9964.312 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 16: 9967.080 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 17: 9965.114 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 18: 9966.860 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 19: 9965.375 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 20: 9966.215 ops/ms
>>>>>
>>>>> Result : 9964.568 ±(99.9%) 5.743 ops/ms
>>>>> Statistics: (min, avg, max) = (9937.091, 9964.568, 9968.032),
>>>>> stdev = 6.613
>>>>> Confidence interval (99.9%): [9958.826, 9970.311]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Numbers from http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot without
>>>>> the y == 2 check:
>>>>> Iteration 1: 9966.775 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 2: 9964.514 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 3: 9959.708 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 4: 9965.501 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 5: 9958.087 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 6: 9964.471 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 7: 9964.966 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 8: 9965.132 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 9: 9959.055 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 10: 9964.666 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 11: 9965.649 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 12: 9964.309 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 13: 9966.963 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 14: 9956.511 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 15: 9964.881 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 16: 9966.927 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 17: 9951.054 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 18: 9966.512 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 19: 9967.041 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 20: 9967.198 ops/ms
>>>>>
>>>>> Result : 9963.496 ±(99.9%) 3.760 ops/ms
>>>>> Statistics: (min, avg, max) = (9951.054, 9963.496, 9967.198),
>>>>> stdev = 4.330
>>>>> Confidence interval (99.9%): [9959.736, 9967.256]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Numbers from http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot with the
>>>>> y == 2 check:
>>>>> Iteration 1: 276969.757 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 2: 276809.529 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 3: 276621.258 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 4: 276352.094 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 5: 276922.865 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 6: 276617.189 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 7: 276941.087 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 8: 276215.547 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 9: 276118.685 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 10: 276550.807 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 11: 276773.424 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 12: 276871.125 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 13: 276059.947 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 14: 277109.329 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 15: 276910.165 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 16: 276138.922 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 17: 276083.749 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 18: 276367.479 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 19: 276563.471 ops/ms
>>>>> Iteration 20: 276022.425 ops/ms
>>>>>
>>>>> Result : 276550.943 ±(99.9%) 309.657 ops/ms
>>>>> Statistics: (min, avg, max) = (276022.425, 276550.943,
>>>>> 277109.329), stdev = 356.601
>>>>> Confidence interval (99.9%): [276241.286, 276860.600]
>>>>>
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list