Nice! At least Hotspot part since I don't understand jdk part :)
I would suggest to add more detailed comment (instead of simple "Stop profiling") to inline_profileBranch() intrinsic explaining what it is doing because it is not strictly "intrinsic" - it does not implement profileBranch() java code when counts is constant.
You forgot to mark Opaque4Node as macro node. I would suggest to base it on Opaque2Node then you will get some methods from it.
Thanks, Vladimir On 1/16/15 9:16 AM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8063137/webrev.00/hotspot/ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8063137/webrev.00/jdk/ https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8063137 After GuardWithTest (GWT) LambdaForms became shared, profile pollution significantly distorted compilation decisions. It affected inlining and hindered some optimizations. It causes significant performance regressions for Nashorn (on Octane benchmarks). Inlining was fixed by 8059877 [1], but it didn't cover the case when a branch is never taken. It can cause missed optimization opportunity, and not just increase in code size. For example, non-pruned branch can break escape analysis. Currently, there are 2 problems: - branch frequencies profile pollution - deoptimization counts pollution Branch frequency pollution hides from JIT the fact that a branch is never taken. Since GWT LambdaForms (and hence their bytecode) are heavily shared, but the behavior is specific to MethodHandle, there's no way for JIT to understand how particular GWT instance behaves. The solution I propose is to do profiling in Java code and feed it to JIT. Every GWT MethodHandle holds an auxiliary array (int[2]) where profiling info is stored. Once JIT kicks in, it can retrieve these counts, if corresponding MethodHandle is a compile-time constant (and it is usually the case). To communicate the profile data from Java code to JIT, MethodHandleImpl::profileBranch() is used. If GWT MethodHandle isn't a compile-time constant, profiling should proceed. It happens when corresponding LambdaForm is already shared, for newly created GWT MethodHandles profiling can occur only in native code (dedicated nmethod for a single LambdaForm). So, when compilation of the whole MethodHandle chain is triggered, the profile should be already gathered. Overriding branch frequencies is not enough. Statistics on deoptimization events is also polluted. Even if a branch is never taken, JIT doesn't issue an uncommon trap there unless corresponding bytecode doesn't trap too much and doesn't cause too many recompiles. I added @IgnoreProfile and place it only on GWT LambdaForms. When JIT sees it on some method, Compile::too_many_traps & Compile::too_many_recompiles for that method always return false. It allows JIT to prune the branch based on custom profile and recompile the method, if the branch is visited. For now, I wanted to keep the fix very focused. The next thing I plan to do is to experiment with ignoring deoptimization counts for other LambdaForms which are heavily shared. I already saw problems caused by deoptimization counts pollution (see JDK-8068915 [2]). I plan to backport the fix into 8u40, once I finish extensive performance testing. Testing: JPRT, java/lang/invoke tests, nashorn (nashorn testsuite, Octane). Thanks! PS: as a summary, my experiments show that fixes for 8063137 & 8068915 [2] almost completely recovers peak performance after LambdaForm sharing [3]. There's one more problem left (non-inlined MethodHandle invocations are more expensive when LFs are shared), but it's a story for another day. Best regards, Vladimir Ivanov [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059877 8059877: GWT branch frequencies pollution due to LF sharing [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068915 [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046703 JEP 210: LambdaForm Reduction and Caching _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-...@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
