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

Sat Jan 30 14:27:54 UTC 2016


On 1/29/16 2:20 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> 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.

This is reviewed now.  If David wants metadata sizing to change back to 
64 bits on 32 bit platforms, it's a one line change.  I'm going to push 
it to get the rest in.
Thanks,
Coleen
>
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>