Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8255742: PrintInlining as compiler directive doesn't print virtual calls #1596

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

@simonis
Copy link
Member

@simonis simonis commented Dec 3, 2020

If we set PrintInlining for a specific method only with the help of a compiler directive (e.g. -XX:CompileCommand="option,Inlining::foo,PrintInlining") it won't print virtual calls which can't be inlined. These calls are printed if we use the global -XX:+PrintInlining option.

The fix is trivial:

--- a/src/hotspot/share/opto/doCall.cpp
+++ b/src/hotspot/share/opto/doCall.cpp
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ CallGenerator* Compile::call_generator(ciMethod* callee, int vtable_index, bool
   // Use a more generic tactic, like a simple call.
   if (call_does_dispatch) {
     const char* msg = "virtual call";
- if (PrintInlining) print_inlining(callee, jvms->depth() - 1, jvms->bci(), msg);
+ if (C->print_inlining()) print_inlining(callee, jvms->depth() - 1, jvms->bci(), msg);
     C->log_inline_failure(msg);
     return CallGenerator::for_virtual_call(callee, vtable_index);
   } else {

Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8255742: PrintInlining as compiler directive doesn't print virtual calls

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1596/head:pull/1596
$ git checkout pull/1596

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 3, 2020

👋 Welcome back simonis! 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.

Loading

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020

@simonis 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.

Loading

@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Dec 3, 2020

Webrevs

Loading

Copy link
Member

@TobiHartmann TobiHartmann left a comment

Otherwise looks good to me.

Loading

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/inlining/PrintInlining.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Loading
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020

@simonis 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:

8255742: PrintInlining as compiler directive doesn't print virtual calls

Reviewed-by: thartmann, kvn

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 8 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 6c9482e: 8257561: Some code is not vectorized after 8251925 and 8250607
  • 70517c8: 8257642: CipherByteBufferOverwriteTest copyright issue
  • e836396: 8257436: [aarch64] Regressions in ArrayCopyUnalignedDst.testByte/testChar for 65-78 bytes when UseSIMDForMemoryOps is on
  • b170c83: 8257591: Remove suppression of record preview related warnings in java.lang
  • 66a2e70: 8255845: Memory leak in imageFile.cpp
  • fa58671: 8257020: [JVMCI] enable a JVMCICompiler to specify which GCs it supports
  • 129c377: 8257594: C2 compiled checkcast of non-null object triggers endless deoptimization/recompilation cycle
  • e4497c9: 8256718: Obsolete the long term deprecated and aliased Trace flags

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Dec 3, 2020
eastig
eastig approved these changes Dec 3, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@eastig eastig left a comment

LGTM

Loading

@simonis
Copy link
Member Author

@simonis simonis commented Dec 3, 2020

LGTM

Thanks Evgeny!

Loading

@simonis
Copy link
Member Author

@simonis simonis commented Dec 3, 2020

Thanks Vladimir!

Loading

@simonis
Copy link
Member Author

@simonis simonis commented Dec 3, 2020

/integrate

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Dec 3, 2020
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready rfr labels Dec 3, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020

@simonis Since your change was applied there have been 8 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 6c9482e: 8257561: Some code is not vectorized after 8251925 and 8250607
  • 70517c8: 8257642: CipherByteBufferOverwriteTest copyright issue
  • e836396: 8257436: [aarch64] Regressions in ArrayCopyUnalignedDst.testByte/testChar for 65-78 bytes when UseSIMDForMemoryOps is on
  • b170c83: 8257591: Remove suppression of record preview related warnings in java.lang
  • 66a2e70: 8255845: Memory leak in imageFile.cpp
  • fa58671: 8257020: [JVMCI] enable a JVMCICompiler to specify which GCs it supports
  • 129c377: 8257594: C2 compiled checkcast of non-null object triggers endless deoptimization/recompilation cycle
  • e4497c9: 8256718: Obsolete the long term deprecated and aliased Trace flags

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit d3f3c32.

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

Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
5 participants