8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes #1938

shipilev · 2021-01-04T19:32:09Z

This work improves Zero performance considerably, without complicating the interpreter all that much. This work is based on much earlier patch by @rkennke, then edited by @jerboaa, and finally polished by me here :)

SPECjvm benchmarks improve across the board, with lowest improvement on Derby (+6%) and largest on Compress (+50%). Given that Zero is used to implement the JVM on emerging platforms that are still rather slow themselves, it makes sense to make Zero quantifiably faster. Even 10% improvement means more than 2 hours a day worth of CPU time.

Additional testing:

Linux x86_64 Zero fastdebug bootcycle-images
Linux x86_64 Zero fastdebug tier1
Linux x86_64 Zero fastdebug fuzzer tests (no failures = no new behaviors introduced)

Progress

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

Issue

JDK-8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes

Reviewers

Roman Kennke (@rkennke - Reviewer)
Coleen Phillimore (@coleenp - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to da31a9d

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1938/head:pull/1938
$ git checkout pull/1938

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1938
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1938/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1938

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1938

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1938.diff

bridgekeeper · 2021-01-04T19:36:40Z

👋 Welcome back shade! 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 · 2021-01-04T19:37:46Z

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

hotspot-runtime

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.

bridgekeeper · 2021-02-01T21:44:36Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

shipilev · 2021-02-04T10:10:06Z

Hold on, bot, we are not done yet.

bridgekeeper · 2021-03-04T11:03:21Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

shipilev · 2021-03-04T12:14:53Z

Not now, bot.

bridgekeeper · 2021-04-21T13:26:11Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

shipilev · 2021-04-21T14:01:33Z

Not yet, bot.

bridgekeeper · 2021-05-19T16:16:31Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

shipilev · 2021-05-19T16:31:43Z

Not now, bot.

bridgekeeper · 2021-06-16T17:06:47Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

shipilev · 2021-06-22T17:56:05Z

Not now, bot. This is a draft PR.

bridgekeeper · 2021-07-20T20:56:06Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

shipilev · 2021-07-21T08:04:38Z

Not now, bot. This is a draft PR.

bridgekeeper · 2021-08-18T10:20:48Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

bridgekeeper · 2021-09-15T15:35:58Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 16 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it! This can be done using the /open pull request command.

shipilev · 2021-09-16T08:10:01Z

This should wait for tier1 stabilization for Zero. But otherwise it is still on track.

/open

openjdk · 2021-09-16T08:10:36Z

@shipilev @HostUserDetails{id=1858943, username='shipilev', fullName='null'} this pull request is now open

bridgekeeper · 2021-10-14T13:02:22Z

@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

mlbridge · 2021-10-18T14:47:04Z

Webrevs

rkennke

Nice work! Looks good to me! Thank you!

openjdk · 2021-10-19T10:50:40Z

@shipilev 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:

8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes

Reviewed-by: rkennke, coleenp

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 49 new commits pushed to the master branch:

02f7900: 8276932: G1: Annotate methods with override explicitly in g1CollectedHeap.hpp
fdcd16a: 8277048: Tiny improvements to the specification text for java.util.Properties.load
b231f5b: 8276921: G1: Remove redundant failed evacuation regions calculation in RemoveSelfForwardPtrHRClosure
ca2efb7: 8274687: JDWP deadlocks if some Java thread reaches wait in blockOnDebuggerSuspend
296780c: 8276983: Small fixes to DumpAllocStat::print_stats
8c5f030: 8276453: Undefined behavior in C1 LIR_OprDesc causes SEGV in fastdebug build
176d21d: 8276824: refactor Thread::is_JavaThread_protected
74f3e69: 8277071: [BACKOUT] JDK-8276743 Make openjdk build Zip Archive generation "reproducible"
b85500e: 8276123: ZipFile::getEntry will not return a file entry when there is a directory entry of the same name within a Zip File
0d2980c: 8258192: Obsolete the CriticalJNINatives flag
... and 39 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/0f463a7bf73791eda9404882ff63daf9040399bb...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.

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

coleenp

Looks good! We've had this request for so long now so thank you for doing it!

src/hotspot/share/interpreter/zero/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp

shipilev · 2021-11-04T10:40:41Z

I realized that there are feature flags (RewriteBytecodes) that govern such translation. New patch implements that handling, thus giving us an escape hatch if the translation is incorrect. Since field accesses are hot and checking the flag within the interpreter slows it down measurably, I opted to specialize BytecodeInterpreter a bit more.

shipilev · 2021-11-08T07:41:00Z

I realized that there are feature flags (RewriteBytecodes) that govern such translation. New patch implements that handling, thus giving us an escape hatch if the translation is incorrect. Since field accesses are hot and checking the flag within the interpreter slows it down measurably, I opted to specialize BytecodeInterpreter a bit more.

@coleenp, @rkennke -- can I ask you to take another look at this?

rkennke

Looks good to me! Thanks!

shipilev · 2021-11-16T07:31:21Z

Re-ran Fuzzer in both -XX:+RewriteBytecodes and -XX:-RewriteBytecodes, still looks fine.

/integrate

openjdk · 2021-11-16T07:32:47Z

Going to push as commit e436200.
Since your change was applied there have been 59 commits pushed to the master branch:

bd92674: 8276184: Exclude lambda proxy class from the CDS archive if its caller class is excluded
a59c9b2: 8271515: Integration of JEP 417: Vector API (Third Incubator)
9326eb1: 8276095: ciReplay: replay failure due to incomplete ciMethodData information
7a87041: 8275385: Change nested classes in jdk.jdi to static nested classes
db0c8d5: 8274232: Cleanup unnecessary null comparison before instanceof check in jdk.jdi
1830b8d: 8275056: Virtualize G1CardSet containers over heap region
fe45835: 8274856: Failing jpackage tests with fastdebug/release build
9046077: 8276084: Linux DEB Bundler: release number in outputted .deb file should be optional
7fc344d: 8277028: Use service type documentation as fallback for @provides
35a831d: 8272170: Missing memory barrier when checking active state for regions
... and 49 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/0f463a7bf73791eda9404882ff63daf9040399bb...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2021-11-16T07:33:02Z

@shipilev Pushed as commit e436200.

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

DamonFool · 2021-11-19T15:55:14Z

A regression was found here: #6479
Please review.
Thanks.

openjdk bot added the hotspot-runtime hotspot-runtime-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 4, 2021

bridgekeeper bot closed this Sep 15, 2021

openjdk bot reopened this Sep 16, 2021

shipilev force-pushed the JDK-8008243-zero-fast-bytecodes branch from c052e9b to db93f88 Compare September 17, 2021 11:05

shipilev force-pushed the JDK-8008243-zero-fast-bytecodes branch from db93f88 to ffd9768 Compare October 18, 2021 10:14

Base implementation

4e485b0

shipilev force-pushed the JDK-8008243-zero-fast-bytecodes branch from 62f8a57 to 4e485b0 Compare October 18, 2021 14:34

shipilev marked this pull request as ready for review October 18, 2021 14:41

shipilev changed the title ~~8008243: Zero: implement fast bytecodes~~ 8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes Oct 18, 2021

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Oct 18, 2021

shipilev added 3 commits October 19, 2021 10:47

MAYBE_POST_FIELD_MODIFICATION should check _putstatic

e8f65d3

Comment _fast_zputfield LSB

45ad597

Remove shadowing "obj" to fix JVMTI tests

da31a9d

rkennke approved these changes Oct 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Oct 19, 2021

coleenp approved these changes Oct 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/interpreter/zero/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

src/hotspot/share/interpreter/zero/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

shipilev added 4 commits October 20, 2021 08:24

Guard the rewrites with feature flags

1875c86

Rework feature flag as template argument

c38bfd9

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8008243-zero-fast-bytecodes

cb62e87

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8008243-zero-fast-bytecodes

915d72d

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8008243-zero-fast-bytecodes

9419e26

rkennke approved these changes Nov 15, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot closed this Nov 16, 2021

openjdk bot added integrated Pull request has been integrated and removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 16, 2021

shipilev deleted the JDK-8008243-zero-fast-bytecodes branch November 22, 2021 09:28

8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes #1938

8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes #1938

shipilev commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 4, 2021

openjdk bot commented Jan 4, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 1, 2021

shipilev commented Feb 4, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Mar 4, 2021

shipilev commented Mar 4, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 21, 2021

shipilev commented Apr 21, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented May 19, 2021

shipilev commented May 19, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 16, 2021

shipilev commented Jun 22, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Jul 20, 2021

shipilev commented Jul 21, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Aug 18, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 15, 2021

shipilev commented Sep 16, 2021

openjdk bot commented Sep 16, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 14, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Oct 18, 2021 •

edited

rkennke left a comment

openjdk bot commented Oct 19, 2021 •

edited

coleenp left a comment

shipilev commented Nov 4, 2021

shipilev commented Nov 8, 2021

rkennke left a comment

shipilev commented Nov 16, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 16, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 16, 2021

DamonFool commented Nov 19, 2021

8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes #1938

8008243: Zero: Implement fast bytecodes #1938

Conversation

shipilev commented Jan 4, 2021 • edited by openjdk bot

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 4, 2021

openjdk bot commented Jan 4, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 1, 2021

shipilev commented Feb 4, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Mar 4, 2021

shipilev commented Mar 4, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 21, 2021

shipilev commented Apr 21, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented May 19, 2021

shipilev commented May 19, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 16, 2021

shipilev commented Jun 22, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Jul 20, 2021

shipilev commented Jul 21, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Aug 18, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 15, 2021

shipilev commented Sep 16, 2021

openjdk bot commented Sep 16, 2021

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 14, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Oct 18, 2021 • edited

Webrevs

rkennke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Oct 19, 2021 • edited

coleenp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shipilev commented Nov 4, 2021

shipilev commented Nov 8, 2021

rkennke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shipilev commented Nov 16, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 16, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 16, 2021

DamonFool commented Nov 19, 2021

shipilev commented Jan 4, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

mlbridge bot commented Oct 18, 2021 •

edited

openjdk bot commented Oct 19, 2021 •

edited