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

[Stefan Johansson]

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.

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