RFR 8145628: hotspot metadata classes shouldn't use HeapWordSize or heap related macros like align_object_size

[Coleen Phillimore]

Thanks Chris,

On 1/29/16 2:15 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
> Hi Coleen,
>
> On 1/28/16 7:31 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> I made a few extra changes because of your question that I didn't 
>> answer below, a few HeapWordSize became wordSize.  I apologize that I 
>> don't know how to create incremental webrevs. See discussion below.
>>
>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8145628.02/
>>
>> On 1/28/16 4:52 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>> On 1/28/16 1:41 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, Chris for looking at this change.
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/16 4:24 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you do some testing with ObjectAlignmentInBytes set to 
>>>>> something other than 8?
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I can run one of the testsets with that.  I verified it in 
>>>> the debugger mostly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone from GC team should apply your patch, grep for 
>>>>> align_object_size(), and confirm that the ones you didn't change 
>>>>> are correct. I gave a quick look and they look right to me, but I 
>>>>> wasn't always certain if object alignment was appropriate in all 
>>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> thanks - this is why I'd changed the align_object_size to 
>>>> align_heap_object_size before testing and changed it back, to 
>>>> verify that I didn't miss any.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see some remaining HeapWordSize references that are suspect, 
>>>>> like in Array.java and bytecodeTracer.cpp. I didn't go through all 
>>>>> of them since there are about 428. Do they need closer inspection?
>>> ??? Any comment?
>>
>> Actually, I tried to get a lot of HeapWordSize in the metadata but 
>> the primary focus of the change, despite the title, was to fix 
>> align_object_size wasn't used on metadata.
> ok.
>> That said a quick look at the instances of HeapWordSize led to some 
>> that weren't in the heap.  I didn't look in Array.java because it's 
>> in the SA which isn't maintainable anyway, but I changed a few.  
>> There were very few that were not referring to objects in the Java 
>> heap. bytecodeTracer was one and there were a couple in metaspace.cpp.
> Ok. If you think there may be more, or a more thorough analysis is 
> needed, perhaps just file a bug to get the rest later.

 From my look yesterday, there aren't a lot of HeapWordSize left. There 
are probably still a lot of HeapWord* casts for things that aren't in 
the Java heap.  This is a bigger cleanup that might not make sense to do 
in one change, but maybe in incremental changes to related code.

>
> As for reviewing your incremental changes, as long as it was just more 
> changes of HeapWordSize to wordSize, I'm sure they are fine. (And yes, 
> I did see that the removal of Symbol size alignment was also added).

Good, thanks.

>>
>> The bad news is that's more code to review.   See above webrev link.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> align_metadata_offset() is not used. It can be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I'll remove it.  That's a good idea.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't align_metadata_size()  align to 64-bit like 
>>>>> align_object_size() did, and not align to word size? Isn't that 
>>>>> what we agreed to? Have you tested CDS? David had concerns about 
>>>>> the InstanceKlass::size() not returning the same aligned size as 
>>>>> Metachunk::object_alignment().
>>>>
>>>> I ran the CDS tests but I could test some more with CDS. We don't 
>>>> want to force the size of objects to be 64 bit (especially Symbol) 
>>>> because Metachunk::object_alignment() is 64 bits.
>>> Do you mean "just" because? I wasn't necessarily suggesting that all 
>>> metadata be 64-bit aligned. However, the ones that have their 
>>> allocation size 64-bit aligned should be. I think David's concern is 
>>> that he wrote code that computes how much memory is needed for the 
>>> archive, and it uses size() for that. If the Metachunk allocator 
>>> allocates more than size() due to the 64-bit alignment of 
>>> Metachunk::object_alignment(), then he will underestimate the size. 
>>> You'll need to double check with David to see if I got this right.
>>
>> I don't know what code this is but yes, it would be wrong.  It also 
>> would be wrong if there's any other alignment gaps or space in 
>> metaspace chunks because chunks themselves have an allocation 
>> granularity.
>>
>> It could be changed back by changing the function 
>> align_metaspace_size from 1 to WordsPerLong if you wanted to.
>>
>> I fixed Symbol so that it didn't call align_metaspace_size if this 
>> change is needed in the future.
>>
>> I was trying to limit the size of this change to correct 
>> align_object_size for metadata.
> Well, there a few issues being addressed by fixing align_object_size. 
> Using align_object_size was incorrect from a code purity standpoint 
> (it was used on values unrelated to java objects), and was also 
> incorrect when ObjectAlignmentInBytes was not 8. This was the main 
> motivation for making this change.

Exactly. This was higher priority because it was wrong.
>
> The 3rd issue is that align_object_size by default was doing 8 byte 
> alignment, and this wastes memory on 32-bit. However, as I mentioned 
> there may be some dependencies on this 8 byte alignment due to the 
> metaspace allocator doing 8 byte alignment. If you can get David to 
> say he's ok with just 4-byte size alignment on 32-bit, then I'm ok 
> with this change. Otherwise I think maybe you should stay with 8 byte 
> alignment (including symbols), and file a bug to someday change it to 
> word alignment, and have the metaspace allocator require that you pass 
> in alignment requirements.

Okay, I can see what David says but I wouldn't change Symbol back. 
That's mostly unrelated to metadata storage and I can get 32 bit packing 
for symbols on 32 bit platforms.  It probably saves more space than the 
other more invasive ideas that we've had.

Thanks,
Coleen

>>
>> Thanks for looking at this in detail.
> No problem. Thanks for cleaning this up.
>
> Chris
>>
>> Coleen
>>
>>
>>>> Unfortunately, with the latter, metadata is never aligned on 32 bit 
>>>> boundaries for 32 bit platforms, but to fix this, we have to pass a 
>>>> minimum_alignment parameter to Metaspace::allocate() because the 
>>>> alignment is not a function of the size of the object but what is 
>>>> required from its nonstatic data members.
>>> Correct.
>>>>   I found MethodCounters, Klass (and subclasses) and ConstantPool 
>>>> has such alignment constraints. Not sizing metadata to 64 bit sizes 
>>>> is a start for making this change.
>>> I agree with that, but just wanted to point out why David may be 
>>> concerned with this change.
>>>>>
>>>>> instanceKlass.hpp: Need to fix the following comment:
>>>>>
>>>>>   97   // sizeof(OopMapBlock) in HeapWords.
>>>> Fixed, Thanks!
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Coleen
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/27/16 10:27 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>>>> Summary: Use align_metadata_size, align_metadata_offset and 
>>>>>> is_metadata_aligned for metadata rather
>>>>>> than align_object_size, etc.  Use wordSize rather than 
>>>>>> HeapWordSize for metadata.  Use align_ptr_up
>>>>>> rather than align_pointer_up (all the related functions are ptr).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ran RBT quick tests on all platforms along with Chris's Plummers 
>>>>>> change for 8143608, ran jtreg hotspot tests and 
>>>>>> nsk.sajdi.testlist co-located tests because there are SA 
>>>>>> changes.   Reran subset of this after merging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a script to update copyrights on commit. It's not a big 
>>>>>> change, just mostly boring.  See the bug comments for more 
>>>>>> details about the change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8145628.01/
>>>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145628
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Coleen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>