RFR(S) 8189140 - SystemDictionaryShared::initialize() should be renamed to be more meaningful

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

On 5/15/18 5:47 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
> I've updated the webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk11/8189140-rename-system-dict-shared-initialize.v02/ 
>
>
> 1. Added JavaCalls::new_instance so we can avoid all the boiler plate 
> code for allocating
>    the instance andinvoking the constructor.
>
> JavaCalls::new_instance calls InstanceKlass->initialize. This is just 
> a quick op after
>    the class is already initialized. Also, JavaCalls::call_static also 
> internally call
>    into InstanceKlass->initialize, so I am just following the existing 
> pattern as Coleen
>    mentioned below.
>

I think I like your last version better.  I don't think 
JavaCalls::new_instance() can nicely generalize the calls to object init 
functions that I found around the vm.  I think just doing what you had 
would be better.  It's only 3 klass->initialize calls. You could make 
the new_instance() function local to systemDictionaryShared to save code 
if they are all the same, but I don't see much advantage.

Also a general new_instance() function should have the call to this to 
be the same as the others (see reflection.cpp).

   klass->check_valid_for_instantiation(false, CHECK_NULL);

If it were possible to replace all klass->allocate_instance() calls with 
JavaCalls::new_instance(), that seems like the API would be worth it, 
but it's not possible.   So people can still make mistakes and not call 
the object init function, like I think someone did in jvm.cpp.


> Doing the initialization on demand also means for cases where JAR 
> manifest is not used
>    (all code is loaded from the system image or directories), we get 
> faster start-up.
>
> 2. I also took the time to removed a bunch of "// One oop argument" 
> comments which
>    probably meant something to the person who wrote it, but seems 
> useless to everyone
>    else.

Not sure what that would mean myself :)
>
> 3. As Calvin suggested, I removed the File_klass and also 
> ParseUtil_klass from
>    the system dictionary since they are not used anywhere. This 
> hopefully improves start-up
>    by a little bit, since these 2 classes are no longer resolved at 
> start-up.
>
>
> (BTW, I changed the RFR subject line from XS to S due to the extend of 
> change :-)
>
Make it S again!

Coleen

> Thanks
> - Ioi
>
>
>
>
> On 5/15/18 2:00 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk11/8189140-rename-system-dict-shared-initialize.v01/src/hotspot/share/classfile/systemDictionaryShared.cpp.udiff.html 
>>
>>
>> This looks good.  This is a pattern that's used in other places, and 
>> it would be better to not initialize these at startup in thread.cpp.
>>
>> Coleen
>>
>> On 5/15/18 2:07 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189140
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iklam/jdk11/8189140-rename-system-dict-shared-initialize.v01/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>
>>> 1. Removed the forced initialization of a few classes used by AppCDS 
>>> at JVM start-up.
>>>    Instead, initialize these class on demand by calling 
>>> InstanceKlass::initialize, which
>>>    is a quick no-op if the class is already initialized.
>>>
>>> 2. The only initialization left is that of a global lock. So I 
>>> renamed the function
>>>    to SystemDictionaryShared::initialize_locks().
>>>
>>> 3. I moved the call of this function from 
>>> SystemDictionary::compute_java_loaders() to
>>> SystemDictionary::initialize() where it seems to fit.
>>>
>>> Testing with hs-tiers 1 and 2.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> - Ioi
>>
>