RFR: 8295486: Inconsistent constant field values observed during compilation [v9]

[Tobias Hartmann]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 07:05:17 GMT, Tobias Hartmann <thartmann at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> We hit a "not monotonic" assert because the new type of a load from a stable final field is more narrow than the old type which contradicts the assumption that types should only go from TOP to BOTTOM during CCP:
>> 
>> old: `narrowoop: java/lang/Integer:BotPTR:exact *`
>> new: `narrowoop: java/lang/Integer java.lang.Integer {0x000000062c41e548} ...`
>> 
>> or 
>> 
>> old: `narrowoop: java/lang/Integer java.lang.Integer {0x000000062c41e538} ...`
>> new: `narrowoop: java/lang/Integer java.lang.Integer {0x000000062c41e548} ...`
>> 
>> The problem is that a stable field can be (re-)initialized during compilation and since the value is not cached, contradicting types can be observed. In `LoadNode::Value`, we re-read the field value each time: 
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/872384707e89d03ede655aad16f360dc94f10152/src/hotspot/share/opto/memnode.cpp#L1994-L1997
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/872384707e89d03ede655aad16f360dc94f10152/src/hotspot/share/opto/type.cpp#L332-L337
>> 
>> The same problem exists for loads from stable arrays:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/872384707e89d03ede655aad16f360dc94f10152/src/hotspot/share/opto/memnode.cpp#L1923
>> 
>> Caching the field value is not feasible as it would require a cache per ciInstance for all the fields and per ciArray for all the elements. Alternatively, we could keep track of the lookup and only do it once but that would also be lots of additional complexity for a benign issue.
>> 
>> Instead, I propose to skip verification during CCP when folding loads from stable fields. Non-stable, constant fields are not affected as `null` is a valid value for them and they would already be folded before CCP.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tobias
>
> Tobias Hartmann has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Forgot to change order in constructor
>  - Fixed typo

Thanks again, Vladimir.

> One last question. Do I understand correctly that static fields constant value is already handled by ciField::constant_value()?

Yes, for example for C2, final static fields are handled via `Type::make_constant_from_field` -> `ciField::constant_value` -> `ciInstance::field_value_impl` (on the mirror object) which will then check the cache via `check_constant_value_cache`.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11861