RFR: JDK-8214527 AArch64: ZGC for Aarch64
aph at redhat.com
Tue Jun 11 08:53:09 UTC 2019
On 6/10/19 10:38 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
> With ZGC we are emitting more lea macro instructions. In some
> circumstances I found that a post indexed address was being passed to
> LEA, and so we have to cover that circumstance. In this case, the
> effective address is just the base address, as it is changed after the
> address is calculated.
Can we not find some way to fix this? Presumably Intel doesn't do that
because it has no post-increment instructions.
> rscratch2 is loaded with the effective source address, which you'll
> see is passed to the load barrier routine, further down in the method
> - would you like a comment clarifying?
The use of scratch registers in the AArch64 barrier code has already
led to runtime bugs; it's not a model to be imitated. Please do not
use scratch registers to pass parameters. It's too risky. Also, please
do not expect scratch registers to be preserved across macro
> // call_VM_leaf uses rscratch1.
> __ call_VM_leaf(ZBarrierSetRuntime::load_barrier_on_oop_field_preloaded_addr(decorators),
> dst, rscratch2);
> As for the vector registers, I should be saving the full 128 bits of
> v0 to v31? ZBarrierSetAssembler::load_at on x86 saves 8 SSE XMM
> registers - would they be considered the same as the save-on-call
> d0-d7 registers on Aarch64?
> I notice that z_x86_64.ad will kill xmm, ymm and zmm registers (SSE,
> AVX, AVX-512 registers?), depending on the machine it is on. I presume
> the risk we have here is that during autovectorization these registers
> will be lost if we are unlucky enough to have the barrier code
Explicit KILLs in the AD file are the thing to do here. This uses the
native calling convention.
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
More information about the zgc-dev