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

Kuai Wei kuaiwei.kw at alibaba-inc.com
Wed Oct 31 01:05:30 UTC 2018


Vladimir, thanks for your help.

Kevin


------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>
Send Time:2018年10月31日(星期三) 05:42
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

Pushed:

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/8d8702585652

Vladimir

On 10/29/18 7:44 AM, Kuai Wei wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
>    I've re-run spec test on our test machine several times. In my test, I can get 2~3 percent improvement. So I think it 
> may help to our system. It would be good for us if it could be merged into upstream JDK. Could you help us to push this 
> change?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From:Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>
>     Send Time:2018年10月25日(星期四) 01:04
>     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
> 
>     jbb2015 finished and there is no significant difference.
> 
>     To test changes I added diagnostic flag to turn changes on and off:
> 
>     -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:+UseNewCode
>     -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:-UseNewCode
> 
>     Please, try it in your setup.  Based on all this data I agree to push changes but please test this latest changes with
>     on/off new code to verify that you still see improvement and you still *want* these changes (the last version of it).
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Vladimir
> 
>     diff -r c9459e2f7bc8 src/hotspot/share/opto/graphKit.cpp
>     --- a/src/hotspot/share/opto/graphKit.cpp Tue Oct 23 17:01:48 2018 -0400
>     +++ b/src/hotspot/share/opto/graphKit.cpp Wed Oct 24 08:52:48 2018 -0700
>     @@ -2116,8 +2116,17 @@
>        // 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)
>     -    return C->recent_alloc_obj();
>     +  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 it degraded to a copy.
>     +  if (UseNewCode && ctrl != NULL && ctrl->is_Region() && ctrl->req() == 2 &&
>     +      ctrl->as_Region()->is_copy()) {
>     +    ctrl = ctrl->as_Region()->is_copy();
>     +  }
>     +  if (C->recent_alloc_ctl() == ctrl) {
>     +   return C->recent_alloc_obj();
>     +  }
>          return NULL;
>        }
> 
> 
> 
>     On 10/24/18 8:59 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>      > I ran jvm2008, jbb2005, jbb2015 (which is still running) and javac tool performance tests.
>      > I don't see any effects in jvm2008 and jbb2005. I see slight improvement in javac performance.
>      > Lets wait when jbb2015 finish it runs.
>      > We also have very unstable jbb2015 results and use mean value from several runs.
>      >
>      > Vladimir
>      >
>      > On 10/23/18 7:14 PM, Kuai Wei 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
>      >>      >      >      >      >>
>      >>      >      >      >
>      >>      >      >
>      >>      >      >
>      >>      >
>      >>      >
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20181031/dee229c9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list