8301489: C1: ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs #14492

danielogh · 2023-06-15T11:13:02Z

ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs on some graph shapes. We propose adding a check that the insertion point for an instruction that is a candidate for hoisting should not be higher up the dominator tree than any inputs to the instruction.

Testing: tier1-tier3.

Additional testing: observed that (cur_invariant && !v.is_valid()) never occurs on tier1-tier3 before the added test case.
Also verified that the depth check is equivalent to (*vp->block() == _insert->block()) || dominates(*vp, _insert) on all of tier1-tier3.

Failure case: in the attached image the arraylength instruction from B10 is lifted to B0, as the dominator of B10 is calculated as B0. This is based on the logic in ComputeLinearScanOrder::compute_dominator_impl. But the array input is in Block 3. This is later spotted in c1_LIRAssembler.cpp with Error: ShouldNotReachHere(). We can reproduce the error on other instructions too -- the reader may refer to the test case provided.

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8301489: C1: ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs (Bug - P3)

Reviewers

Tobias Hartmann (@TobiHartmann - Reviewer)
Roberto Castañeda Lozano (@robcasloz - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14492/head:pull/14492
$ git checkout pull/14492

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/14492
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14492/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 14492

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 14492

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14492.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2023-06-15T11:13:52Z

👋 Welcome back danielogh! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2023-06-15T11:16:13Z

@danielogh The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

hotspot-compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2023-06-15T11:20:08Z

Webrevs

TobiHartmann

Great work investigating this, Daniel!

From your comments in JBS, it seems that the underlying issue is additional exception edges in the graph that affect dominator computation. Could you elaborate a bit more on that with respect to the example that you provided in the PR description?

I'm not an expert in C1 though (paging @veresov and @rwestrel as the author of JDK-7153771).

Thanks,
Tobias

TobiHartmann · 2023-06-19T05:30:56Z

src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_ValueMap.cpp

+#ifdef ASSERT
+      assert(insert != nullptr, "insertion point should not be null");
+#endif


Suggested change

#ifdef ASSERT

assert(insert != nullptr, "insertion point should not be null");

#endif

assert(insert != nullptr, "insertion point should not be null");

TobiHartmann · 2023-06-19T05:32:10Z

src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_ValueMap.cpp

+  }
+
+ public:
+  bool is_valid() {return _valid; }


Suggested change

bool is_valid() {return _valid; }

bool is_valid() { return _valid; }

TobiHartmann · 2023-06-19T05:34:47Z

src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_ValueMap.cpp

+  Value _insert;
+  bool _valid = true;
+
+  void visit(Value* vp) {


Since Value is already a pointer type, can't we use Value v here?

I am not sure if this is possible without changing the ValueVisitor (ref) itself

Right, makes sense.

robcasloz

Good catch, analysis, and regression test Daniel. Great that you could generalize the fix to cover all other LICM cases. Just a couple of comments/suggestions.

robcasloz · 2023-06-19T08:29:18Z

src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_ValueMap.cpp

  }
 }

+class CheckInsertionPoint: public ValueVisitor {


For consistency with other similar cases in c1_ValueMap.cpp:

Suggested change

class CheckInsertionPoint: public ValueVisitor {

class CheckInsertionPoint : public ValueVisitor {

robcasloz · 2023-06-19T08:35:16Z

src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_ValueMap.cpp

+    CheckInsertionPoint v(_insertion_point);
+    cur->input_values_do(&v);


For compilation efficiency, would it be possible to perform this computation only when cur_invariant holds? You could for example encapsulate the creation of v, call to cur->input_values_do(&v), and v.is_valid() check into an auxiliary function is_dominated_by_inputs(_insertion_point, cur) or similar and call that function below (if (cur_invariant && is_dominated_by_inputs(_insertion_point, cur)) {).

danielogh · 2023-06-20T08:38:32Z

Great work investigating this, Daniel!

From your comments in JBS, it seems that the underlying issue is additional exception edges in the graph that affect dominator computation. Could you elaborate a bit more on that with respect to the example that you provided in the PR description?

I'm not an expert in C1 though (paging @veresov and @rwestrel as the author of JDK-7153771).

Thanks, Tobias

Thank you very much for review!

My understanding is, this might have been introduced in JDK-7153771, where we have extra edges to the exception handler of all successors during dominator calculation -- Additional edge to xhandler of all our successors. The client RangeCheckElimination optimization needed this additional information, but the short loop optimization was not updated accordingly. In this specific case, I observed using print debugging and -XX:TraceLinearScanLevel=4, that the dominator of B10 is being calculated as common_dominator(B7, B1). But B1 has dominator B0 because of the extra edge from B14 to B1 (the exception handler of B3). The short loop optimization lifts loop invariant instructions to the dominator of the loop header, which in this case becomes B0.

robcasloz

Thanks for addressing the suggestions and for the additional explanation, looks good!

openjdk · 2023-06-21T11:58:17Z

@danielogh This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8301489: C1: ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs

Reviewed-by: thartmann, rcastanedalo

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 148 new commits pushed to the master branch:

990e3a7: 8308899: Introduce Classfile context and improve Classfile options
79c056e: 8006421: GraphicsConfiguration of a frame is changed when the frame is moved to another screen
45b581b: 8309583: AArch64: Optimize firstTrue() when amount of elements < 8
87e6fab: 8310873: Re-enable locked_create_entry symbol check in runtime/NMT/CheckForProperDetailStackTrace.java for RISC-V
39fa4e6: 8310489: New test runtime/ClassInitErrors/TestStackOverflowDuringInit.java failed
46add3f: 8310909: java.io.InvalidObjectException has redundant @since tag
8f5b677: 8310908: Non-standard @since tag in com.sun.java.accessibility.util.package-info
a197ee7: 8310838: Correct range notations in MethodTypeDesc specification
7c6a28f: 8310922: java/lang/Class/forName/ForNameNames.java fails after being added by JDK-8310242
7db2f08: 8310242: Clarify the name parameter to Class::forName
... and 138 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/6b942893868fa1a64977288bdbdb1bbff8bd9d9c...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@TobiHartmann, @robcasloz) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

TobiHartmann

Looks good to me.

danielogh · 2023-06-27T06:41:37Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2023-06-27T06:43:28Z

@danielogh
Your change (at version 074d1ed) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

danielogh · 2023-06-27T06:53:22Z

Thanks Roberto and Tobias for review. Thanks Roberto for additional help with PR.

TobiHartmann · 2023-06-27T07:04:41Z

/sponsor

openjdk · 2023-06-27T07:05:53Z

Going to push as commit 73d7aa1.
Since your change was applied there have been 148 commits pushed to the master branch:

990e3a7: 8308899: Introduce Classfile context and improve Classfile options
79c056e: 8006421: GraphicsConfiguration of a frame is changed when the frame is moved to another screen
45b581b: 8309583: AArch64: Optimize firstTrue() when amount of elements < 8
87e6fab: 8310873: Re-enable locked_create_entry symbol check in runtime/NMT/CheckForProperDetailStackTrace.java for RISC-V
39fa4e6: 8310489: New test runtime/ClassInitErrors/TestStackOverflowDuringInit.java failed
46add3f: 8310909: java.io.InvalidObjectException has redundant @since tag
8f5b677: 8310908: Non-standard @since tag in com.sun.java.accessibility.util.package-info
a197ee7: 8310838: Correct range notations in MethodTypeDesc specification
7c6a28f: 8310922: java/lang/Class/forName/ForNameNames.java fails after being added by JDK-8310242
7db2f08: 8310242: Clarify the name parameter to Class::forName
... and 138 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/6b942893868fa1a64977288bdbdb1bbff8bd9d9c...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2023-06-27T07:06:03Z

@TobiHartmann @danielogh Pushed as commit 73d7aa1.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

danielogh added 8 commits June 15, 2023 06:35

WIP fix with validation

766ff9e

WIP with some checks

235ad50

WIP

c41e033

WIP close

1b63eca

Tweak comment

0b35629

Remove unecessary Xbatch

2d8065a

fix compileonly

8dd2833

latest

b4c550a

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jun 15, 2023

openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Jun 15, 2023

TobiHartmann reviewed Jun 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

robcasloz suggested changes Jun 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

review comments

ebb6655

danielogh changed the title ~~8301489: ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs~~ 8301489: C1: ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs Jun 20, 2023

Tweak test #iterations

074d1ed

robcasloz approved these changes Jun 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jun 21, 2023

TobiHartmann approved these changes Jun 23, 2023

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Jun 27, 2023

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jun 27, 2023

openjdk bot closed this Jun 27, 2023

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Jun 27, 2023

	bool is_valid() {return _valid; }
	bool is_valid() { return _valid; }

	class CheckInsertionPoint: public ValueVisitor {
	class CheckInsertionPoint : public ValueVisitor {

		CheckInsertionPoint v(_insertion_point);
		cur->input_values_do(&v);

8301489: C1: ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs #14492

8301489: C1: ShortLoopOptimizer might lift instructions before their inputs #14492

Uh oh!

Conversation

danielogh commented Jun 15, 2023 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Webrev

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 15, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jun 15, 2023

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Jun 15, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann Jun 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann Jun 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann Jun 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danielogh Jun 20, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann Jun 23, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

robcasloz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

robcasloz Jun 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

robcasloz Jun 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danielogh commented Jun 20, 2023

Uh oh!

robcasloz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jun 21, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danielogh commented Jun 27, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jun 27, 2023

Uh oh!

danielogh commented Jun 27, 2023

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann commented Jun 27, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jun 27, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jun 27, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

danielogh commented Jun 15, 2023 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jun 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

danielogh Jun 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jun 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading