RFR: 8146001: Remove support for command line options from JVMCI
Doug Simon
doug.simon at oracle.com
Mon Jan 4 22:31:14 UTC 2016
> On 04 Jan 2016, at 18:41, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 22, 2015, at 4:50 AM, Doug Simon <doug.simon at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The effort of maintaining JVMCI across different JDK versions (including a potential backport to JDK7) is reduced by making JVMCI as small as possible. The support for command line options in JVMCI (based around the @Option annotation) is a good candidate for removal:
>>>>
>>>> 1. It’s almost entirely implemented on top of system properties and so can be made to work without VM support.
>>>> 2. JVMCI itself only currently uses 3 options which can be replaced with usage of sun.misc.VM.getSavedProperty(). The latter ensures application code can’t override JVMCI properties set on the command line.
>>>>
>>>> This change removes the JVMCI command line option support.
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146001
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dnsimon/8146001/
>>>
>>> + private static final boolean TrustFinalDefaultFields = HotSpotJVMCIRuntime.getBooleanProperty(TrustFinalDefaultFieldsProperty, true);
>>>
>>> + private static final boolean ImplicitStableValues = HotSpotJVMCIRuntime.getBooleanProperty("jvmci.ImplicitStableValues", true);
>>>
>>> We should either use the jvmci. prefix or not.
>>
>> Sorry, I was reading the patch wrong. Of course both use the jvmci. prefix.
>
> I think we should prefix the property name in getBooleanProperty:
>
> + public static boolean getBooleanProperty(String name, boolean def) {
> + String value = VM.getSavedProperty("jvmci." + name);
Ok, sounds reasonable.
>
> and I put UseProfilingInformation back:
>
> diff -r 0fcfe4b07f7e src/jdk.vm.ci/share/classes/jdk.vm.ci.hotspot/src/jdk/vm/ci/hotspot/HotSpotResolvedJavaMethodImpl.java
> --- a/src/jdk.vm.ci/share/classes/jdk.vm.ci.hotspot/src/jdk/vm/ci/hotspot/HotSpotResolvedJavaMethodImpl.java Tue Dec 29 18:30:51 2015 +0100
> +++ b/src/jdk.vm.ci/share/classes/jdk.vm.ci.hotspot/src/jdk/vm/ci/hotspot/HotSpotResolvedJavaMethodImpl.java Mon Jan 04 07:40:46 2016 -1000
> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ package jdk.vm.ci.hotspot;
>
> import static jdk.vm.ci.hotspot.CompilerToVM.compilerToVM;
> import static jdk.vm.ci.hotspot.HotSpotJVMCIRuntime.runtime;
> -import static jdk.vm.ci.hotspot.HotSpotResolvedJavaMethod.Options.UseProfilingInformation;
> import static jdk.vm.ci.hotspot.HotSpotVMConfig.config;
> import static jdk.vm.ci.hotspot.UnsafeAccess.UNSAFE;
>
> @@ -65,6 +64,11 @@ import jdk.vm.ci.meta.TriState;
> final class HotSpotResolvedJavaMethodImpl extends HotSpotMethod implements HotSpotResolvedJavaMethod, HotSpotProxified, MetaspaceWrapperObject {
>
> /**
> + * Whether to use profiling information.
> + */
> + private static final boolean UseProfilingInformation = HotSpotJVMCIRuntime.getBooleanProperty("UseProfilingInformation", true);
> +
> + /**
> * Reference to metaspace Method object.
> */
> private final long metaspaceMethod;
> @@ -424,7 +428,7 @@ final class HotSpotResolvedJavaMethodImp
> public ProfilingInfo getProfilingInfo(boolean includeNormal, boolean includeOSR) {
> ProfilingInfo info;
>
> - if (UseProfilingInformation.getValue() && methodData == null) {
> + if (UseProfilingInformation && methodData == null) {
> long metaspaceMethodData = UNSAFE.getAddress(metaspaceMethod + config().methodDataOffset);
> if (metaspaceMethodData != 0) {
> methodData = new HotSpotMethodData(metaspaceMethodData, this);
JVMCI should unconditionally return available profiling information. It's up to the compiler whether or not to use it. For example, this is now compilation local in Graal:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/graal/graal-compiler/rev/f35e653aa876#l16.16
-Doug
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list