[Patch] 8210853: C2 doesn't skip post barrier for new allocated objects

Doug Simon doug.simon at oracle.com
Wed Oct 24 08:05:48 UTC 2018


Eric Caspole may be able to share his experience with trying to get stable results with jbb2015.

-Doug

> On 24 Oct 2018, at 04:14, Kuai Wei <kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I tested several times and the result is similar. I can get overall performance improvement and some test suite degradation.
> It looks the small jOPS test will cause more unstable score. Can you share some experience to to run spec with stable result?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>
> Send Time:2018年10月24日(星期三) 06:57
> To:蒯微(麦庶) <kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com>; Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>; hotspot compiler <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Cc:李三红(三红) <sanhong.lsh at alibaba-inc.com>
> Subject:Re: 回复:[Patch] 8210853: C2 doesn't skip post barrier for new allocated objects
> 
> Did you run it only one? It is known that jbb2015 produce unstable results. I would suggest to rerun test with 
> regression several times.
> 
> My regression testing finished clean. I will submit performance testing too.
> 
> Regards,
> Vladimir
> 
> On 10/19/18 12:56 AM, Kuai Wei wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> > 
> >    Thanks for testing the change. It's good to me to move input check from assert to condition.
> > I also tested with specjbb2015. The result is
> >                                                          enable         disable
> > jbb2015.result.metric.max-jOPS           73234          71531      2.38%
> > jbb2015.result.metric.critical-jOPS        31256          30293      3.18%
> > jbb2015.result.SLA-10000-jOPS           16605          14902      11.43%
> > jbb2015.result.SLA-25000-jOPS            21715          23503      -7.61%
> > jbb2015.result.SLA-50000-jOPS            38076          34630       9.95%
> > jbb2015.result.SLA-75000-jOPS            43004          43145      -0.33%
> > jbb2015.result.SLA-100000-jOPS          50525          48751       3.64%
> > 
> >   The jvm option I used is "-XX:+UseG1GC 
> > -XX:+UnlockExperimentalVMOptions -Xmx100g -Xms100g -XX:MaxGCPauseMillis=300 -XX:G1NewSizePercent=8 -XX:G1MaxNewSizePercent=50"
> > It can improve overall performance. And there's one test suite with performance degradation. I'm not sure why it happen.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Kevin
> > 
> >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     From:Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>
> >     Send Time:2018年10月17日(星期三) 05:16
> >     To:蒯微(麦庶) <kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com>; Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>; hotspot compiler
> >     <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >     Cc:李三红(三红) <sanhong.lsh at alibaba-inc.com>
> >     Subject:Re: 回复:[Patch] 8210853: C2 doesn't skip post barrier for new allocated objects
> > 
> >     On 10/16/18 4:56 AM, Kuai Wei wrote:
> >      > Hi Vladimir,
> >      >
> >      >    About the copy region, I made this fix to check if region node is copy. In my test case, the
> >      > region is degraded to copy and
> >      > post write barrier is removed. I haven't checked the detail of the transform. I think there's an
> >      > ideal phase between inlining and
> >      > parsing store oop. So the phi node is removed and region node is degraded to copy.
> >      >
> >      >    We tested the fix in several online trade systems. We can check cpu usage difference between
> >      > machines with same load. I will
> >      > test with some benchmark tests and give the score.
> > 
> >     Sounds good. Lets see if it helps in your production system.
> >     I will submit our internal testing with your latest fix with small change. I moved req() == 2 check
> >     from assert to condition to narrow cases (copy Region may have > 2 inputs with only 1 not-null input):
> > 
> >     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8210853/webrev.00/
> > 
> >     Vladimir
> > 
> >      >
> >      > Thanks,
> >      > Kevin
> >      >
> >      >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >     From:Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>
> >      >     Send Time:2018年10月16日(星期二) 08:45
> >      >     To:蒯微(麦庶) <kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com>; Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>;
> >      >     hotspot compiler <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >      >     Cc:李三红(三红) <sanhong.lsh at alibaba-inc.com>
> >      >     Subject:Re: 回复:[Patch] 8210853: C2 doesn't skip post barrier for new allocated objects
> >      >
> >      >     Hi Kevin,
> >      >
> >      >     On 10/4/18 8:18 AM, Kuai Wei wrote:
> >      >      > Hi Vladimir,
> >      >      >
> >      >      >    I'm not sure about the phi node here. Is it used for merging allocation in fast path and slow path?
> >      >      > In parsing phase, the allocation node is not expanded, so there's no this phi node. If my understand
> >      >      > is wrong, please correct me. So far as I know, the region node is created while inlining initialize
> >      >      > method
> >      >      > of super type. And phi node is not necessary. But the region node is always created.
> >      >
> >      >     It is not related to slow and fast path of allocation. It is general rule to have Phi nodes when new
> >      >
> >      >     Region node is created. Like here:
> >      >
> >      >     http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/04d4f1e4aff2/src/hotspot/share/opto/parse1.cpp#l772
> >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      >    I understand your concern. But write barrier is added in parse phase, we must check it in parse time
> >      >      > to do this optimization. If the region node is a copy, could we assume it will not have additional
> >      >      > input?
> >      >
> >      >     Yes, I think it is true. Copy Region never goes back to normal (merge) Region.
> >      >
> >      >      > I checked region node, a copy region node is created when only one input edge and compiler can not
> >      >      > reshape, the region node will be degraded to a copy. I think it will be dead in future phase.
> >      >
> >      >     Yes. But does your case have a 'copy' Region? I originally thought that you have normal Region with
> >      >     just one input.
> >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      >    In our trade system, this optimization could improve 5%+ performance. It's a big improvement and we
> >      >      > don't want to lose it. If there's better solution, we are pleasure to implement it.
> >      >
> >      >     Yes, I agree that we should fix it.
> >      >
> >      >     What testing did you perform?
> >      >
> >      >     Thanks,
> >      >     Vladimir
> >      >
> >      >      >
> >      >      > Thanks,
> >      >      > Kevin
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >      >     From:Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>
> >      >      >     Send Time:2018年10月4日(星期四) 06:50
> >      >      >     To:蒯微(麦庶) <kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com>; Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>;
> >      >      >     hotspot compiler <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >      >      >     Cc:李三红(三红) <sanhong.lsh at alibaba-inc.com>
> >      >      >     Subject:Re: 回复:[Patch] 8210853: C2 doesn't skip post barrier for new allocated objects
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     Sorry, I mean
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     "should exist Phi *associated* with allocation"
> >      >      >
> >      >      >     On 10/3/18 3:48 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> >      >      >      > Hi Kevin,
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      > You correctly pointed in your analysis that if base of address is pointing to allocation there
> >      >      >      > should not be other control path to this store. But it also means that before there should exist Phi
> >      >      >      > not associated with allocation when Region node was added. If Phi node was removed at some time
> >      >      >      > Region node should be removed too (or not add it in first place). Please, look on that.
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      > I share Tobias's concern about skipping Region node in Parse phase when IR graph is still constructed.
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      > Thanks,
> >      >      >      > Vladimir
> >      >      >      >
> >      >      >      > On 10/3/18 8:08 AM, Kuai Wei wrote:
> >      >      >      >> Hi Tobias,
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>   I made the change to check with RegionNode::is_copy, could you check the new patch?
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> diff --git a/src/hotspot/share/opto/graphKit.cpp b/src/hotspot/share/opto/graphKit.cpp
> >      >      >      >> index 068141f..884a76c 100644
> >      >      >      >> --- a/src/hotspot/share/opto/graphKit.cpp
> >      >      >      >> +++ b/src/hotspot/share/opto/graphKit.cpp
> >      >      >      >> @@ -2126,7 +2126,15 @@ void GraphKit::uncommon_trap(int trap_request,
> >      >      >      >>   // We use this to determine if an object is so "fresh" that
> >      >      >      >>   // it does not require card marks.
> >      >      >      >>   Node* GraphKit::just_allocated_object(Node* current_control) {
> >      >      >      >> -  if (C->recent_alloc_ctl() == current_control)
> >      >      >      >> +  Node * ctrl = current_control;
> >      >      >      >> +  // Object::<init> is invoked after allocation, most of invoke nodes
> >      >      >      >> +  // will be reduced, but a region node is kept in parse time, we check
> >      >      >      >> +  // the pattern and skip the region node
> >      >      >      >> +  if (ctrl != NULL && ctrl->is_Region() && ctrl->as_Region()->is_copy()) {
> >      >      >      >> +    assert(ctrl->req() == 2, "copy region has only 2 inputs");
> >      >      >      >> +    ctrl = ctrl->as_Region()->is_copy();
> >      >      >      >> +  }
> >      >      >      >> +  if (C->recent_alloc_ctl() == ctrl)
> >      >      >      >>       return C->recent_alloc_obj();
> >      >      >      >>     return NULL;
> >      >      >      >>   }
> >      >      >      >> Thanks,
> >      >      >      >> Kevin
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >      >      >>     From:蒯微(麦庶) <kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com>
> >      >      >      >>     Send Time:2018年9月25日(星期二) 21:50
> >      >      >      >>     To:Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>; hotspot compiler
> >      >      >      >>     <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >      >      >      >>     Cc:李三红(三红) <sanhong.lsh at alibaba-inc.com>
> >      >      >      >>     Subject:回复:回复:
> >      >     [Patch] 8210853: C2 doesn't skip post barrier for new allocated objects
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     Hi Tobias,
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>        Thanks for your comments. I will check RegionNode::is_copy to see if it can be used to detect
> >      >      >      >>     unnecessary region node. I will send new review after testing.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     Best Regards,
> >      >      >      >>     Kevin
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >      >      >>     发件人:Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>
> >      >      >      >>     发送时间:2018年9月24日(星期一) 21:34
> >      >      >      >>     收件人:蒯微(麦庶) <kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com>; hotspot compiler
> >      >      >      >>     <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >      >      >      >>     抄 送:李三红(三红) <sanhong.lsh at alibaba-inc.com>
> >      >      >      >>     主 题:Re: 回复:
> >      >     [Patch] 8210853: C2 doesn't skip post barrier for new allocated objects
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     Hi Kevin,
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     On 24.09.2018 08:06, Kuai Wei wrote:
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> >   Thanks for your suggestion. I think your point is the region node may have new path in later parse
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>      > phase, so we can not make sure the region node will be optimized.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> Yes, my point is that a new path to the region might be added after your optimization and that path
> >      >      >      >>     might contain stores to the newly allocated object.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>      >   It's a good question and I checked it. Now I think it may not cause trouble. In post barrier
> >      >      >      >>      > reduce, the oop store use allocation node as base pointer. The data graph guarantee control of
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> > allocation node should dominate control of store. If allocation node is in pred of region node and
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> > there's a new path into region, the graph is bad because we can reach store without allocation.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     Yes but the new path might be a backedge from a loop that is dominated by the allocation.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> > If allocation node is in a domination ancestor, the graph shape is a little complicated, so we can not
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>      > reach control of allocation by skipping one region.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> Right, that's basically the implicit assumption of your patch. I'm not sure if it always holds. But
> >      >      >      >>     I think you should at least use RegionNode::is_copy().
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     Let's see what other reviewers think.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> >   The better solution is we can know the region node is created in exit_map and we will not change
> >      >      >      >>      > it in later. Is there any way to know it in compile time?
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >> The region node is created in Parse::build_exits(). I don't think there is a way to keep track of this.
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >      >>     Thanks,
> >      >      >      >>     Tobias
> >      >      >      >>
> >      >      >
> >      >
> >      > 
> > 
> > 



More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list