-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
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
JDK-8320382: Remove CompressedKlassPointers::is_valid_base() #16727
JDK-8320382: Remove CompressedKlassPointers::is_valid_base() #16727
Conversation
👋 Welcome back stuefe! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
arm breakage unrelated, see because of #15455 |
Ping @theRealAph |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's ok.
I think there is an advantage in checking the base early instead of somewhere deep in MA, at which point I'd probably wonder where the base came from. Maybe there is a way to achieve the simplification that you had in mind while also retaining those checks?
@tstuefe 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:
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 42 new commits pushed to the
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 |
Honestly, none that is worth the complexity. These asserts usually fired as a result of metaspace reservation - which is an automatic process - coming up with unsuitable reservation addresses. An assert at that point is every bit as baffling to the end user as the later assert in MA. The only point where an early clear warning makes sense is when we check the user input for SharedBaseAddress, which we do (and, the new message is even better than the old one). |
Thanks @theRealAph and @rkennke ! /integrate |
Going to push as commit 98edb03.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
CompressedKlassPointers::is_valid_base(addr)
abstracts away platform-specific requirements that may limit the use of an address as narrow Klass encoding base. It only ever mattered on aarch64, where we cannot use any arbitrary address as 64-bit immediate for the base.Experience shows that this is a case where the abstraction does not help much. Hiding a very CPU-specific limitation under a generic function made arguing about it difficult. We therefore decided to scrap that function.
It is only used for two things:
Note that the function has also been incorrect, since it ignored aarch64 EOR mode, and required 32GB alignment for addresses beyond 32GB. However, we can make any 4GB aligned address to work with movk, so the requirement can be simplified to "is 4GB-aligned".
(this is a preparatory patch for JDK-8320368 and further Lilliput-related changes)
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16727/head:pull/16727
$ git checkout pull/16727
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/16727
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16727/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 16727
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 16727
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16727.diff
Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment