RFR(S) 8032656: Tag the MachSpillCopies with purpose information

[Niclas Adlertz]

Hi Vladimir,

On 2014-01-29 23:31, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:> Hi Niclas
>
> On 1/29/14 2:02 PM, Niclas Adlertz wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> The initial states of _current_pressure and _final_pressure are computed
>> in PhaseChaitin::compute_initial_block_pressure().
>> We loop through all live ranges that are in the LIVE_OUT of the block,
>> and raise the _current_pressure (for either int or float) for each live
>> range. If the _current_pressure is bigger than the _final_pressure
>> (which is initially 0), we set the _final_pressure to be
>> _current_pressure. We check this each time we increase the
>> _current_pressure. This is done in Pressure::raise(). (I.e. the
>> _final_pressure is the highest value of _current_pressure that we ever
>> encounter in the block)
>
> It is not accurate, it could be higher. You overwrite it in check_for_high_pressure_transition_at_fatproj().
In a way it is accurate, because at a fat_proj the _current_pressure will be raised and then lowered right after (stepping backwards) since the fat_proj is only "live" at its definition.
(That's why we never change the _current_pressure at a fat_proj but still look for a _final_pressure change).

>
> May be all _*_pressure fields should be private and code which updates them is located in one place. Then it would be more obvious that code you are removing is useless.
>
>>
>> The _high_pressure_limit is passed into the constructor of the Pressure
>> class. This is done in the beginning of the build_ifg_physical():
>>
>> Pressure int_pressure(last_inst + 1, INTPRESSURE);
>> Pressure float_pressure(last_inst + 1, FLOATPRESSURE);
>>
>>> How we can get case (_current_pressure == _high_pressure_limit)?
>> When we lower the pressure, it is assumed that we lower each time by 1
>> (this happens every time we remove a definition from the LIVE_OUT when
>> stepping backwards in the block). So if _current_pressure is greater
>> than _high_pressure_limit, and we lower the _current_pressure, we might
>> hit the case when _current_pressure == _high_pressure_limit. If so, we
>> have found a Low to High pressure transition in the block. (Low to High
>> when starting from the top of the block)
>> However, there is one problem with this case, since the pressure could
>> be lowered by more than 1. (Long or Double will lower it by 2). So we
>> might miss a transition when lowering. There is already a bug
>> (JDK-8032886) filed for this which will be out soon. I didn't fix this
>> bug in the clean up since I wanted them to be separate commits.
>
> Okay, sounds good.
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>

Do you still want me to add the assert even though we only find a new _final_pressure when raising?

Kind Regards,
Niclas Adlertz

>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Niclas Adlertz
>>
>>
>> On 2014-01-29 19:53, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> What is initial state of _current_pressure, _high_pressure_limit,
>>> _final_pressure? How we can get case (_current_pressure ==
>>> _high_pressure_limit)? May be we should replace the code with assert:
>>>
>>> assert(_current_pressure <= _final_pressure
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 1/29/14 4:09 AM, Niclas Adlertz wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> When building the physical IFG, we step backwards in each block, and
>>>> remove things that are defined from the LIVE_OUT, (and lower the current
>>>> pressure) and add input to the LIVE_OUT (and raising the current
>>>> pressure). Each time we lower or raise the current pressure, we check if
>>>> it's bigger than the current maximum pressure, known as final_pressure.
>>>> However the final_pressure can never increase when removing definitions
>>>> (i.e. lower the current pressure) so the check for a new final_pressure
>>>> in Pressure::lower is useless.
>>>>
>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~adlertz/JDK-8032894/webrev00/
>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032894
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> Niclas Adlertz
>>