RFR: 8370473: C2: Better Aligment of Vector Spill Slots [v4]

[Goetz Lindenmaier]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:21:34 GMT, Richard Reingruber <rrich at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> With this change c2 will allocate spill slots for vectors with sp offsets aligned to the size of the vectors. Maximum alignment is StackAlignmentInBytes.
>> 
>> It also updates comments that have never been changed to describe how register allocation works for sizes larger than 64 bit.
>> 
>> The change helps to produce better spill code on AARCH64 and PPC64 where an additional add instruction is emitted if the offset of a vector un-/spill is not aligned.
>> 
>> The change is rather a cleanup than an optimization. In most cases the sp offsets will already be properly aligned.
>> Only with incoming stack arguments unaligned offsets can be generated. But also then alignment padding is only added if vector registers larger than 64 bit are used.
>> 
>> So the costs are effectively zero. Especially because extra padding won't enlarge the frame since only virtual registers are allocated which are mapped to the caller frame (see `pad0` in the [diagram](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/92e380c59c2498b1bc94e26658b07b383deae59a/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/aarch64.ad#L3829))
>> 
>> There's a risk though that with the extra virtual registers allocated for `pad0` the limit of registers a `RegMask` can represent is reached (occurs with excessive spilling). If this happens the compilation would fail. It could be retried with smaller alignment for vector spilling though. I havn't implemented it as I thought the risk is negligible.
>> 
>> Note that the sp offset of the accesses should be aligned rather than the effective address. So it could even be argued that the maximum alignment could be higher than StackAlignmentInBytes.
>> 
>> ##### Testing with fastdebug builds on AARCH64 and PPC64:
>> 
>> hotspot_vector_1
>> hotspot_vector_2
>> jdk_vector
>> jdk_vector_sanity
>> 
>> ##### The change passed our CI testing:
>> Tier 1-4 of hotspot and jdk. All of langtools and jaxp. Renaissance Suite and SAP specific tests.
>> Testing was done on the main platforms and also on Linux/PPC64le and AIX.
>> 
>> C2 compilation of `jdk.internal.vm.vector.VectorSupport::rearrangeOp` has unaligned spill offsets. It is covered by the following tests:
>> 
>> compiler/vectorapi/VectorRearrangeTest.java
>> jdk/incubator/vector/Byte128VectorLoadStoreTests.java
>> jdk/incubator/vector/Double256VectorLoadStoreTests.java
>> jdk/incubator/vector/Float128VectorTests.java
>> jdk/incubator/vector/Long256VectorLoadStoreTests.java
>> jdk/incubator/vector/Short128VectorLoadStoreTests.java
>> jdk/incubator/vector/Vector64ConversionTests.java
>
> Richard Reingruber 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'
>  - Exclude IR check on riscv with rvv
>  - Enhance comment
>  - Fix OptoAssembly for Power 8
>  - PPC: OptoAssembly for vector spilling
>  - Assert aligned sp offsets in vector spilling
>  - Delete TMP and !UseNewCode
>  - Align Matcher::_new_SP for better vector spilling
>  - TMP: trace unaligned vector spilling
>  - Add test

LGTM

OK, so it's not the frame layout aspect of mapping slots to adresses that is adapted by your change, but only the new_sp.
Before, the "unusd" part was in the new frame, now it is in the old one or rather completely omitted.

The growth of the stack is not altered. So the change has no mem space side effect and thus is not critical to apply to all platforms.

Thanks for the clarification!

src/hotspot/share/opto/chaitin.hpp line 146:

> 144: private:
> 145:   // Number of registers this live range uses when it colors
> 146:   uint16_t _num_regs;           // byte size of the value divided by slot size which is 4

Is this true for oops, too?  Hadn't they been mapped to one slot on both, 32 and 64-bit platforms?

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

Marked as reviewed by goetz (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27969#pullrequestreview-3487238248
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27969#issuecomment-3596247610
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27969#discussion_r2545571373