RFR: 8129417: Oop iteration clean-up to remove oop_ms_follow_contents

Fri Aug 21 12:04:29 UTC 2015

Hi Per,

On 2015-08-18 13:11, Per Liden wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 2015-07-07 14:58, Stefan Johansson wrote:
>> Thanks Erik for reviewing,
>>
>> New webrevs:
>> Part 2 - full:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/2-add-oop_iterate_size/hotspot.01/ 
>>
>>
>> Part 2 - inc:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/2-add-oop_iterate_size/hotspot.00-01/ 
>>
>>
>>
>> Part 3 - full:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/3-re-structure-mark-sweep/hotspot.02/ 
>>
>>
>> Part 3 - inc:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/3-re-structure-mark-sweep/hotspot.00-02/ 
>>
>>
>> Also includes an updated assert, which was missed in previous webrev.
>>
>> Comments inline.
>
> Just one thing that looks odd to me, but maybe you can clarify. 
> Shouldn't MarkSweep::follow_object() call follow_array() instead of 
> calling push_objarray()? That way the change made to 
> ObjArrayTask::is_valid() wouldn't be needed.
>
Thanks for looking at this again. I agree that your proposed change 
would make the code nicer and I think I had it structured that way once 
during this work but had to revert it back to this to keep performance.

I went ahead and did the changes and some new measurements, and this 
change leads to a small regression for some platforms. I haven't done 
any deep analysis but I guess it leads to worse inlining decisions on 
these platforms.

I prefer to leave the code as is. The other possible solution would be 
to do further analysis and give even more special inlining hints to the 
different compilers.

Thanks,
Stefan

> /Per
>
>>
>> On 2015-07-06 17:15, Erik Helin wrote:
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> thanks a lot for taking on this work. Please see comments inline.
>>>
>>> On 2015-06-22, Stefan Johansson wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please review these changes for RFE:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129417
>>>>
>>>> Webrev for the full change:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/hotspot.00/
>>>>
>>>> Summary:
>>>> To allow further cleanups and later remove G1 specific code from
>>>> mark-sweep,
>>>> we want to remove the mark-sweep specific visitor
>>>> oop_ms_follow_contents.
>>>> Doing this cleanup has proven to be a little more complicated than I
>>>> first
>>>> anticipated and to make the change easier to review I've split it
>>>> into four
>>>> different parts.
>>>>
>>>> Part 1 - removing oop_ms_follow_contents:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/1-remove-oop_ms_follow_contents/hotspot.00/ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> - Looking in specialized_oop_closures.hpp, the comment
>>>     71 // This is split into several because of a Visual C++ 6.0
>>> compiler bug
>>>     72 // where very long macros cause the compiler to crash
>>>    seems a bit dated, given that Visual C++ 6.0 was released in 1998. I
>>>    think we should try to merge ALL_OOP_OOP_ITERATE_CLOSURES_1 and 2 
>>> (and
>>>    their corresponding macros). Do you think like doing that in this
>>>    patch or do you want to file a follow-up bug?
>> I would like to do/investigate this as a separate RFE, I have a list of
>> things that should follow this clean up and I plan to file those before
>> pushing this change.
>>
>>>
>>> - The part of the patch that changes instanceMirrorKlass.inline.hpp
>>>    might impact more GCs than just any of the marksweep ones. Have you
>>>    seen any performance improvements/regressions with G1 or CMS?
>> No, but I have not done as many runs and done as much analysis of this
>> as I've done on the serial full gc. I've not seen any regression in
>> aurora.se performance runs.
>>>> Part 2 - introducing oop_iterate_size:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/2-add-oop_iterate_size/hotspot.00/ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> - In arrayKlass.hpp, why add a space to:
>>>    +#define OOP_OOP_ITERATE_DECL_NO_BACKWARDS(OopClosureType,
>>> nv_suffix)         \
>> I've followed '\' alignment "rule" for these macros, which seems to be
>> two spaces after the longest line. I just realized that I should also
>> update OOP_OOP_ITERATE_DECL_RANGE with one extra space to be consistent.
>>
>>> - In arrayKlass.hpp, the following lines seems aligned strangely:
>>>    +void KlassType::oop_oop_iterate_range##nv_suffix(oop obj,
>>> OopClosureType* closure, int start, int end) {  \
>>>    +  oop_oop_iterate_range<nvs_to_bool(nv_suffix)>(obj, closure,
>>> start, end);                               \
>> Nice catch, missed fixing the alignment when making it void.
>>
>>> - In oop.inline.hpp, why must the size be computed before applying the
>>>    closure? In the world of perm gen, this might have been important in
>>>    order to not follow stale klass pointers, but with Metaspace the
>>> Klass*
>>>    won't move.
>> As we've discussed offline, this is most likely safe. I've done an
>> ad-hoc RBT run with some random testing when I assert on the size being
>> the same both before and after the call to oop_oop_iterate.
>>
>> I would like to do this change as a separate change as well, so it's
>> been added to my list of RFEs to file.
>>
>>>
>>> - Can we remove the method MutableSpace::oop_iterate?
>> Looks like it, no one seems to be using it. I'll remove it instead of
>> updating it to use oop_iterate_size().
>>
>>>
>>>> Part 3 - restructure mark-sweep:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/3-re-structure-mark-sweep/hotspot.00/ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> - Can you please remove the commented assert in mark_and_push:
>>>     +//  assert(Universe::heap()->is_in_reserved(p), "should be in
>>> object space");
>>>    or should it be enabled again?
>> Removed.
>>
>>> - I agree with Per about moving the check for object arrays into
>>>    follow_object.
>> Already done, but gives a slight regression. I still think we can live
>> with this small regression for now, to avoid people doing wrong and call
>> follow_object on objArrays.
>>
>>>> Part 4 - compiler hints for inlining:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8129417/4-compiler-hints-for-inlining/hotspot.00/ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>> - I would like to see the definiton of FORCE_INLINE in the compiler
>>>    specific globalDefinitions file. Then the code in
>>>    instanceKlass.inline.hpp can look like:
>>>     #if defined(TARGET_COMPILER_visCPP) ||
>>> defined(TARGET_COMPILER_sparcWorks)
>>>       #define INLINE FORCE_INLINE
>>>     #else
>>>       #define INLINE inline
>>>     #endif
>>>
>>> - The same comment for stack.inline.hpp, but with NO_INLINE:
>>>    #if defined(TARGET_COMPILER_sparcWorks)
>>>      #define STACK_NO_INLINE NO_INLINE
>>>    #else
>>>      #define STACK_NO_INLINE
>>>    #endif
>> I agree, we should come up with a better and cleaner way to do this. I
>> will file a follow up RFE.
>>
>>> - I agree with Per about adding an #undef in stack.inline.hpp
>> Already fixed.
>>
>> Thanks again Erik,
>> Stefan
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Erik
>>>
>>>> Testing:
>>>> * Adhoc RBT run for functionality - no new failures.
>>>> * Adhoc aurora.se run for performance - no obvious regression.
>>>> * Many local runs tuned to do Full GCs a lot to verify that there 
>>>> is no
>>>> obvious regression.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Stefan
>>