RFR: 8324969: C2: prevent elimination of unbalanced coarsened locking regions [v8]

[Vladimir Kozlov]

> The issue is that when we do nested locks elimination we don't check that synchronized region has both `Lock` and `Unlock` nodes.
> Which can happen if locks coarsening optimization eliminated pair of Unlock/Lock nodes from adjacent locking regions before we check for nested locks.
> 
> Consider this code (all locks/unlocks use the same object):
> 
>     lock1(obj) { // outer synchronized region
>          lock2(obj) {
>              // nested synchronized region 1
>          } unlock2(obj);
>          lock3(obj) {
>              // nested synchronized region 2
>          } unlock3(obj);
>     } unlock1(obj);
> 
> If `lock3` directly follows `unlock2` (no branches or safepoints) locks coarsening optimization will remove them:
> 
> 
>     lock1(obj) { // outer synchronized region
>          lock2(obj) {
>              // nested synchronized region 1
>          };
>          {
>              // nested synchronized region 2
>          } unlock3(obj);
>     } unlock1(obj);
> 
> 
> Nested locks elimination code checks only `Lock` node in one region to find if it is nested (inside other lock region which use the same object) and then eliminate it. So we end up with not eliminated `Unlock` node in second nested region.
> 
> Why we don't hit this issue before? Normally nested locks elimination executed first and only then we do locks coarsening elimination. In the example above we eliminate all nested `Lock` and `Unlock` nodes, leaving only outer `Lock` and `Unlock`.
> 
> The additional factors which leads to the failure is fully unrolled loop around nested sync regions and some allocation to trigger Escape Analysis:
> 
> 
>     lock1(obj) { // outer synchronized region
>          Test var = new Test(); // Triggers EA
>          for (I = 0; I < 3; i++) { // small iteration number to fully unroll
>              lock2(obj) {
>                  // nested synchronized region 1
>              } unlock2(obj);
>              lock3(obj) {
>                  // nested synchronized region 2
>              } unlock3(obj);
>          }
>     } unlock1(obj);
> 
> Before executing Escape Analysis we do loops optimization to simplify graph: [compile.cpp#L2332](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/hotspot/share/opto/compile.cpp#L2332)
> We also allow to fully unroll short loops (LoopOptsMaxUnroll) to remove merges from graph. It helps EA eliminate allocations.
> Such unrolling creates several `Lock` and `Unlock` nodes per synchronized region. But nested locks elimination look for region with only one unique `Lock` node: [callnode.cpp#L2117](https://github.com/open...

Vladimir Kozlov has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 10 additional commits since the last revision:

 - Merge branch 'master' into 8324969
 - added const to mark_unbalanced_boxes()
 - Added asserts for BoxLock states change
 - Add verivication for unbalanced BoxLock marking
 - Additional changes
 - More comments. Adress review.
 - Renaming
 - New implementation
 - Merge branch 'master' into 8324969
 - 8324969: assert(false) failed: Non-balanced monitor enter/exit!

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17697/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17697/files/e9f59e36..1607411d

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17697&range=07
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17697&range=06-07

  Stats: 38554 lines in 1656 files changed: 17349 ins; 13460 del; 7745 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17697.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17697/head:pull/17697

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17697