CHA for interfaces in C2 compiler

[Vladimir Ivanov]

Nothing changed in 8 & 9 in this respect.

You are looking on a microbenchmark, where you have a trivial method 
with contains just a single call. My point is that it's a corner case 
and you shouldn't notice the difference in a larger application.

Null checks are pervasive on Java level, but for JIT compiler it is 
enough to perform it only once on a value to known the value is non-null 
afterwards.

The same applies to exact type checks: dominating exact type check 
eliminates the need to repeat the type check. It is recorded in C2 type 
system and propagated to all usages.

Every place where type profiling for that interface happens a single 
exact type will be recorded.

Please, note that CHA is more generic and covers the cases when numerous 
classes have a single method implementation. Type profiling is usually 
useless in such case.

But in your example there's a single implementing class, so type profile 
works fine.

Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov

On 4/15/15 7:37 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Here's what I see on 7u60:
>
> private static int doIt(final Foo f) {
> return f.num();
>      }
>
>      interface Foo
>      {
> int num();
>      }
>
>      final class FooImpl implements Foo
>      {
> @Override
> public int num() {
>     return 1;
> }
>      }
>
> Running a simple test where only FooImpl is loaded (in fact, it's the
> only impl period) produces the following asm (stripped down to essentials):
>
>    0x00007f0b31e14a6c: mov    0x8(%rsi),%r10d    ; implicit exception:
> dispatches to 0x00007f0b31e14a9d
>    0x00007f0b31e14a70: cmp    $0x71c9e068,%r10d  ;   {oop('FooImpl')}
>    0x00007f0b31e14a77: jne    0x00007f0b31e14a8a
>    0x00007f0b31e14a79: mov    $0x1,%eax
>    0x00007f0b31e14a7e: add    $0x10,%rsp
>    0x00007f0b31e14a82: pop    %rbp
>
> If I change Foo to be an abstract class, we get this:
>
> 0x00007f0209deb18c: test   %rsi,%rsi
>    0x00007f0209deb18f: je     0x00007f0209deb1a2
>    0x00007f0209deb191: mov    $0x1,%eax
>    0x00007f0209deb196: add    $0x10,%rsp
>    0x00007f0209deb19a: pop    %rbp
>
> So there's an explicit null check but no type check.
>
> Did something change in java 8 or 9 that leads you to say "completely
> eliminated"?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Ivanov
> <vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com <mailto:vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     Vitaly,
>
>     Type profiling reliably detects single interface implementation
>     cases and type check overhead is completely eliminated in most of
>     the cases (type checks are aggressively commoned).
>
>     Do you still think it is worth an effort?
>
>     Best regards,
>     Vladimir Ivanov
>
>
>     On 4/15/15 5:10 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>
>         Hi guys,
>
>         So CHA on classes works nicely in the case of only one subtype
>         loaded.
>         What about interfaces? Currently, it looks like no such
>         optimization/analysis is done.  In my experience, there's a
>         substantial
>         amount of code that exposes an interface via some API, but then
>         loads
>         only implementation of it.  The interface is used instead of
>         abstract
>         class to allow more flexibility in the future.
>
>         I fully realize that lots of interfaces have more than 1 implementer
>         loaded at runtime, but I also think it's worthwhile to attempt
>         CHA for them.
>
>         Is this something that's feasible to do? It would require more class
>         loading dependencies to be tracked, but I'm also fine with
>         having this
>         be an extra flag that I can use to enable/disable this optimization.
>
>         Thoughts?
>
>         Thanks
>
>