[9] RFR (M): 8011858: Use Compile::live_nodes() instead of Compile::unique() in appropriate places

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Thank you, Vlad

It looks good. We usually don't put bug id into comments. So your 
previous version on cr.openjdk is fine.

Second reviewer should look on and sponsor it with you listed as 
contributor (I see you signed OCA already).

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 7/17/15 3:47 PM, Vlad Ureche wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review the following patch for JDK-8011858. Big thanks to
> Vladimir Kozlov for his patient guidance while working on this!
>
> *Bug:* https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011858
>
> *Problem:* Throughout C2, local stacks are used to prevent recursive
> calls from blowing up the system stack. These are sized based on the
> total number of nodes in the compilation run (e.g. C->unique()).
> Instead, they should be sized based on the live node count
> (C->live_nodes()).
>
> Now, with the increased difference between live_nodes (limited at
> LiveNodeCountInliningCutoff, set to 40K) and unique nodes (which can go
> up to 240K), it is important to not over-estimate the size of stacks.
>
> *Solution:* This patch mirrors a patch written by Vladimir Kozlov for
> JDK8u. It replaces the initial sizes from C->unique() to
> C->live_nodes(), preserving any shifts (divisions) and offsets. For
> example, in the compile.cpp patch
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8011858/webrev/src/share/vm/opto/compile.cpp.patch>:
>
> |-  Node_Stack nstack(unique() >> 1);
> +  Node_Stack nstack(live_nodes() >> 1);
> |
>
> There is an issue described at
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8131702 where I took the
> workaround from Vladimir’s patch.
>
> *Webrev:* http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8011858/webrev/ or
> http://vladureche.ro/webrev/8011858
> <http://vladureche.ro/webrev/8011858>(updated, includes a link to bug
> 8121702)
>
> *Tests:* Running jtreg with the compiler, runtime and gc tests on the
> dev <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev> branch shows the same status
> before and after the patch: 808 tests passed, 16 failed and 6 errors
> <http://vladureche.ro/webrev/8011858/JTreport/html/index.html>. What
> would be a stable point where all tests are expected to pass, so I can
> test the patch there? Maybe jdk9 <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9>?
>
> Thanks,
> Vlad
>