RFR: 8199739: Use HeapAccess when loading oops from static fields in javaClasses.cpp

[Roman Kennke]

I got a failure back from submit repo:

Build Details: 2018-03-21-1213342.roman.source
1 Failed Test
Test	Tier	Platform	Keywords	Description	Task
compiler/jsr292/RedefineMethodUsedByMultipleMethodHandles.java 	tier1
macosx-x64-debug 	bug8042235 othervm 	Exception:
java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException 	task
Mach5 Tasks Results Summary

    PASSED: 74
    EXECUTED_WITH_FAILURE: 1
    UNABLE_TO_RUN: 0
    FAILED: 0
    KILLED: 0
    NA: 0
    Test

        1 Executed with failure

tier1-debug-jdk_open_test_hotspot_jtreg_tier1_compiler_3-macosx-x64-debug-28
Results: total: 165, passed: 164; failed: 1


Can you tell if that is related to the change, or something other
already known issue?

Thanks, Roman


> Hi Roman,
> 
> This looks good to me. The unfortunate include problems in
> jvmciJavaClasses.hpp are pre-existing and should be cleaned up at some
> point.
> 
> Thanks,
> /Erik
> 
> On 2018-03-20 16:13, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Am 20.03.2018 um 11:44 schrieb Erik Österlund:
>>> Hi Roman,
>>>
>>> On 2018-03-20 11:26, Roman Kennke wrote:
>>>> Am 20.03.2018 um 11:07 schrieb Erik Österlund:
>>>>> Hi Roman,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-03-19 21:11, Roman Kennke wrote:
>>>>>> Am 19.03.2018 um 20:35 schrieb coleen.phillimore at oracle.com:
>>>>>>> On 3/19/18 3:15 PM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-03-19 20:00, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I like Roman's version with static_field_base() the best.  The
>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>> I wanted to keep static_field_addr and not have static_oop_addr
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> so there is one function to find static fields and this would work
>>>>>>>>> with the jvmci classes and with loading/storing primitives
>>>>>>>>> also.  So
>>>>>>>>> I like the consistent change that Roman has.
>>>>>>>> That's OK with me. This RFE grew in scope of what I first
>>>>>>>> intended, so
>>>>>>>> I'm fine with Roman taking over this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's a subtlety that I haven't quite figured out here.
>>>>>>>>> static_field_addr gets an address mirror+offset, so needs a load
>>>>>>>>> barrier on this offset, then needs a load barrier on the offset of
>>>>>>>>> the additional load (?)
>>>>>>>> There are two barriers in this piece of code:
>>>>>>>> 1) Shenandoah needs a barrier to be able to read fields out of the
>>>>>>>> java mirror
>>>>>>>> 2) ZGC and UseCompressedOops needs a barrier when loading oop
>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>> in the java mirror.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to?
>>>>>>> I had to read this thread over again, and am still foggy, but it was
>>>>>>> because your original change didn't work for shenandoah, ie Kim's
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The brooks pointer has to be applied to get the mirror address as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as reading fields out of the mirror, if I understand correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OopHandle::resolve() which is what java_mirror() is not
>>>>>>> accessorized but
>>>>>>> should be for shenandoah.  I think.  I guess that was my question
>>>>>>> before.
>>>>>> The family of _at() functions in Access, those which accept
>>>>>> oop+offset,
>>>>>> do the chasing of the forwarding pointer in Shenandoah, then they
>>>>>> apply
>>>>>> the offset, load the memory field and return the value in the right
>>>>>> type. They also do the load-barrier in ZGC (haven't checked, but
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>> just logical).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is also oop Access::resolve(oop) which is a bit of a hack.
>>>>>> It has
>>>>>> been introduced because of arraycopy and java <-> native bulk copy
>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>> that uses typeArrayOop::*_at_addr() family of methods. In those
>>>>>> situations we still need to 1. chase the fwd ptr (for reads) or 2.
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> evacuate the object (for writes), where #2 is stronger than #1
>>>>>> (i.e. if
>>>>>> we do #2, then we don't need to do #1). In order to keep things
>>>>>> simple,
>>>>>> we decided to make Access::resolve(oop) do #2, and have it cover all
>>>>>> those cases, and put it in arrayOopDesc::base(). This does the right
>>>>>> thing for all cases, but it is a bit broad, for example, it may
>>>>>> lead to
>>>>>> double-copying a potentially large array (resolve-copy src array from
>>>>>> from-space to to-space, then copy it again to the dst array). For
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> reasons, it is advisable to think twice before using _at_addr() or
>>>>>> in-fact Access::resolve() if there's a better/cleaner way to do it.
>>>>> Are we certain that it is indeed only arraycopy that requires stable
>>>>> accesses until the next thread transition?
>>>>> I seem to recall that last time we discussed this, you thought that
>>>>> there was more than arraycopy code that needed this. For example
>>>>> printing and string encoding/decoding logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are going to make changes based on the assumption that we
>>>>> will be
>>>>> able to get rid of the resolve() barrier, then we should be fairly
>>>>> certain that we can indeed get rid of it. So have the other previously
>>>>> discussed roadblocks other than arraycopy disappeared?
>>>> No, I don't think that resolve() can go away. If you look at:
>>>>
>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2018-March/021464.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You'll see all kinds of uses of _at_addr() that cannot be covered by
>>>> some sort of arraycopy, e.g. the string conversions stuff.
>>>>
>>>> The above patch proposes to split resolve() to resolve_for_read() and
>>>> resolve_for_write(), and I don't think it is unreasonable to
>>>> distinguish
>>>> those. Besides being better for Shenandoah (reduced latency on
>>>> read-only
>>>> accesses), there are conceivable GC algorithms that require that
>>>> distinction too, e.g. transactional memory based GC or copy-on-write
>>>> based GCs. But let's probably continue this discussion in the thread
>>>> mentioned above?
>>> As I thought. The reason I bring it up in this thread is because as I
>>> understand it, you are proposing to push this patch without renaming
>>> static_field_base() to static_field_base_raw(), which is what we did
>>> consistently everywhere else so far, with the motivation that you will
>>> remove resolve() from the other ones soon, and get rid of base_raw().
>>> And I feel like we should have that discussion first. Until that is
>>> actually changed, static_field_base_raw() should be the name of that
>>> method. If we decide to change the other code to do something else, then
>>> we can revisit this then, but not yet.
>> Ok, so I changed static_field_base() -> static_field_base_raw():
>>
>> Diff:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/JDK-8199739/webrev.01.diff/
>> Full:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/JDK-8199739/webrev.01/
>>
>> Better?
>>
>> Thanks, Roman
>>
>>
>