JDK-8275854: C2: assert(stride_con != 0) failed: missed some peephole opt #6099

casparcwang · 2021-10-25T08:08:48Z

If subsume optimization will eliminate LongCountedLoopEndNode node by mistake, which will lead to PhaseIdealLoop optimization crash.

For example, the test of node 538 and node 553 will become the same after the first PhaseIdealLoop optimization. Node 555 is the back edge to the loop, and node 553 will be replaced by a LongCountedLoopEndNode node.

In the next PhaseIdealLoop optimization, node 538 find node 553 is redundant, and will subsume node 553. Then the PhaseIdealLoop optimization will crash, because there is no loop end node.

There are two way to fix the crash, the first is like the way in this pr, just exit IFNode subsume optimization when it's a LongCountedLoopEndNode node. The second possible fix is that exchange the dominating IF node with the LongCountedLoopEndNode node:

diff --git a/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp b/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
index 38b40a6..31ff172 100644
--- a/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
+++ b/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
@@ -1674,6 +1674,21 @@ Node* IfNode::simple_subsuming(PhaseIterGVN* igvn) {
     }
   }
 
+  if (is_LongCountedLoopEnd()) {
+    set_req(0, dom->in(0));
+    set_req(1, dom->in(1));
+    dom->set_req(0, pre);
+    dom->set_req(1, igvn->intcon(is_always_true ? 1 : 0));
+    Node* proj0 = raw_out(0);
+    Node* proj1 = raw_out(1);
+    Node* dom_proj0 = dom->raw_out(0);
+    Node* dom_proj1 = dom->raw_out(1);
+    dom_proj0->set_req(0, this);
+    dom_proj1->set_req(0, this);
+    proj0->set_req(0, dom);
+    proj1->set_req(0, dom);
+  }
+
   if (bol->outcnt() == 0) {
     igvn->remove_dead_node(bol);    // Kill the BoolNode.
   }
diff --git a/src/hotspot/share/opto/loopnode.cpp b/src/hotspot/share/opto/loopnode.cpp
index 6f7e34d..7955722 100644
--- a/src/hotspot/share/opto/loopnode.cpp
+++ b/src/hotspot/share/opto/loopnode.cpp
@@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ bool PhaseIdealLoop::transform_long_counted_loop(IdealLoopTree* loop, Node_List
   Node* back_control = head->in(LoopNode::LoopBackControl);
 
   // data nodes on back branch not supported
-  if (back_control->outcnt() > 1) {
+  if (back_control->outcnt() > 1 || back_control->Opcode() != Op_IfTrue) {
     return false;
   }

Progress

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

Issue

JDK-8275854: C2: assert(stride_con != 0) failed: missed some peephole opt

Reviewers

Tobias Hartmann (@TobiHartmann - Reviewer)
Roland Westrelin (@rwestrel - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to 8c81c88
Vladimir Kozlov (@vnkozlov - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to ccfa6f1

Contributors

Roland Westrelin <roland@openjdk.org>

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6099/head:pull/6099
$ git checkout pull/6099

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/6099
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6099/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 6099

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 6099

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6099.diff

bridgekeeper · 2021-10-25T08:09:22Z

👋 Welcome back casparcwang! 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 · 2021-10-25T08:11:17Z

@casparcwang 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 · 2021-10-25T08:16:12Z

Webrevs

rwestrel · 2021-10-25T12:29:30Z

If subsume optimization will eliminate LongCountedLoopEndNode node by mistake, which will lead to PhaseIdealLoop optimization crash.

Is it by mistake (that is it's erroneous to eliminate the LongCountedLoopEndNode)?
Do you have a test case for this? Ideally, the PR should include one.

casparcwang · 2021-10-26T01:33:32Z

Is it by mistake (that is it's erroneous to eliminate the LongCountedLoopEndNode)? Do you have a test case for this? Ideally, the PR should include one.

Thank you for your review. The crash is reported by our fuzz test cluster, and caused by an OSR compilation. I have added the complete fuzz test as the test case.

TobiHartmann

The problem with such large and non-targeted regression tests is that they won't work for long. Other changes to C2 and/or HotSpot will change timing, profile information, IR shape, optimization sequence or other factors such that the issue will not reproduce anymore with that test. Often, the test also does not reproduce the issue in older JDK versions that are affected as well.

We therefore usually run creduce --not-c on our generated tests to simplify them (see creduce). You might want to increase the number of loop iterations in the main method first and also add -Xbatch.

rwestrel · 2021-10-28T08:42:25Z

The optimization is valid AFAIU, so I don't think blocking it is the right fix. What about something like this:

diff --git a/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp b/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
index 38b40a68b1f..b28a382ebe7 100644
--- a/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
+++ b/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
@@ -1721,6 +1721,14 @@ Node* IfProjNode::Identity(PhaseGVN* phase) {
        // will cause this node to be reprocessed once the dead branch is killed.
        in(0)->outcnt() == 1))) {
     // IfNode control
+    if (in(0)->is_BaseCountedLoopEnd()) {
+      Node* head = unique_ctrl_out();
+      if (head != NULL && head->is_BaseCountedLoop() && head->in(LoopNode::LoopBackControl) == this) {
+        Node* new_head = new LoopNode(head->in(LoopNode::EntryControl), this);
+        phase->is_IterGVN()->register_new_node_with_optimizer(new_head);
+        phase->is_IterGVN()->replace_node(head, new_head);
+      }
+    }
     return in(0)->in(0);
   }
   // no progress

That prevents the crash and gives the loop another chance to be optimized.

casparcwang · 2021-10-29T08:40:01Z

The problem with such large and non-targeted regression tests is that they won't work for long. Other changes to C2 and/or HotSpot will change timing, profile information, IR shape, optimization sequence or other factors such that the issue will not reproduce anymore with that test. Often, the test also does not reproduce the issue in older JDK versions that are affected as well.

We therefore usually run creduce --not-c on our generated tests to simplify them (see creduce). You might want to increase the number of loop iterations in the main method first and also add -Xbatch.

Thank you for your review. The test is indeed not targeted. I will try to reduce the test to a simpler case.

casparcwang · 2021-10-29T08:47:38Z

The optimization is valid AFAIU, so I don't think blocking it is the right fix. What about something like this:

diff --git a/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp b/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
index 38b40a68b1f..b28a382ebe7 100644
--- a/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
+++ b/src/hotspot/share/opto/ifnode.cpp
@@ -1721,6 +1721,14 @@ Node* IfProjNode::Identity(PhaseGVN* phase) {
        // will cause this node to be reprocessed once the dead branch is killed.
        in(0)->outcnt() == 1))) {
     // IfNode control
+    if (in(0)->is_BaseCountedLoopEnd()) {
+      Node* head = unique_ctrl_out();
+      if (head != NULL && head->is_BaseCountedLoop() && head->in(LoopNode::LoopBackControl) == this) {
+        Node* new_head = new LoopNode(head->in(LoopNode::EntryControl), this);
+        phase->is_IterGVN()->register_new_node_with_optimizer(new_head);
+        phase->is_IterGVN()->replace_node(head, new_head);
+      }
+    }
     return in(0)->in(0);
   }
   // no progress

That prevents the crash and gives the loop another chance to be optimized.

Replace the CountedLoopNode node with a new Loop node is more elegant, and will generate more optimized code as the second proposed version (which exchange the two if node), but your suggested code is more compact. I will change to your suggested version.

casparcwang · 2021-10-29T08:54:33Z

/contributor add rwestrel

openjdk · 2021-10-29T08:55:25Z

@casparcwang Could not parse rwestrel as a valid contributor.
Syntax: /contributor (add|remove) [@user | openjdk-user | Full Name <email@address>]. For example:

/contributor add @openjdk-bot
/contributor add duke
/contributor add J. Duke <duke@openjdk.org>

casparcwang · 2021-10-29T08:57:48Z

/contributor add roland

openjdk · 2021-10-29T08:58:49Z

@casparcwang
Contributor Roland Westrelin <roland@openjdk.org> successfully added.

rwestrel

That looks good to me.

openjdk · 2021-10-29T15:55:58Z

⚠️ @casparcwang the full name on your profile does not match the author name in this pull requests' HEAD commit. If this pull request gets integrated then the author name from this pull requests' HEAD commit will be used for the resulting commit. If you wish to push a new commit with a different author name, then please run the following commands in a local repository of your personal fork:

$ git checkout JDK-8275854
$ git commit -c user.name='Preferred Full Name' --allow-empty -m 'Update full name'
$ git push

openjdk · 2021-10-29T15:56:02Z

@casparcwang 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:

8275854: C2: assert(stride_con != 0) failed: missed some peephole opt

Co-authored-by: Roland Westrelin <roland@openjdk.org>
Reviewed-by: thartmann, roland, 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 296 new commits pushed to the master branch:

9862cd0: 8275786: New javadoc option to add script files to generated documentation
7a140af: 8276546: [IR Framework] Whitelist and ignore CompileThreshold
91bb0d6: 8276796: gc/TestSystemGC.java large pages subtest fails with ZGC
08e0fd6: 8276835: G1: make G1EvacFailureObjectsSet::record inline
ad3be04: 8276536: Update TimeZoneNames files to follow the changes made by JDK-8275766
e27a67a: 8276930: Update ProblemList
73e6d7d: 8276801: gc/stress/CriticalNativeStress.java fails intermittently with Shenandoah
bce35ac: 8276775: ZonedDateTime/OffsetDateTime.toString return invalid ISO-8601 for years <= 1893
0c409ca: 8276186: Require getAvailableLocales() methods to include Locale.ROOT
df02daa: 8269986: Remove +3 from Symbol::identity_hash()
... and 286 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/c24fb852f20bf0fc2817dfed52ff1609a5bced59...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, @rwestrel, @vnkozlov) 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).

casparcwang · 2021-11-04T01:15:54Z

ping, can I have more review of this pr?

TobiHartmann

That looks reasonable to me but please add a comment to the new code.

I'll run some testing in the meantime.

vnkozlov

Looks good. But please wait tests results from Tobias.

casparcwang · 2021-11-11T02:44:39Z

That looks reasonable to me but please add a comment to the new code.

I'll run some testing in the meantime.

Thank you very much for your review and testing. I have added some comment to the newly added code.

casparcwang · 2021-11-11T02:50:36Z

Looks good. But please wait tests results from Tobias.

Thank you very much for your review and work. I have passed jtreg and some test-suite on my server, and it's always a good thing to run more tests.

TobiHartmann

The comment looks good and all tests passed.

casparcwang · 2021-11-11T10:34:27Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2021-11-11T10:35:38Z

@casparcwang
Your change (at version 89d00e1) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

huishi-hs · 2021-11-11T10:37:36Z

/sponsor

openjdk · 2021-11-11T10:39:21Z

Going to push as commit aea0967.
Since your change was applied there have been 296 commits pushed to the master branch:

9862cd0: 8275786: New javadoc option to add script files to generated documentation
7a140af: 8276546: [IR Framework] Whitelist and ignore CompileThreshold
91bb0d6: 8276796: gc/TestSystemGC.java large pages subtest fails with ZGC
08e0fd6: 8276835: G1: make G1EvacFailureObjectsSet::record inline
ad3be04: 8276536: Update TimeZoneNames files to follow the changes made by JDK-8275766
e27a67a: 8276930: Update ProblemList
73e6d7d: 8276801: gc/stress/CriticalNativeStress.java fails intermittently with Shenandoah
bce35ac: 8276775: ZonedDateTime/OffsetDateTime.toString return invalid ISO-8601 for years <= 1893
0c409ca: 8276186: Require getAvailableLocales() methods to include Locale.ROOT
df02daa: 8269986: Remove +3 from Symbol::identity_hash()
... and 286 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/c24fb852f20bf0fc2817dfed52ff1609a5bced59...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2021-11-11T10:39:34Z

@huishi-hs @casparcwang Pushed as commit aea0967.

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

Fix

7331313

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Oct 25, 2021

openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Oct 25, 2021

Add a java fuzz test

a244444

Adjust the code style

606fb7e

TobiHartmann reviewed Oct 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

Change to the version of Roland Westrelin

5498cfd

Simplify the test

8c81c88

rwestrel approved these changes Oct 29, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Oct 29, 2021

Specify vm option needs option 'othervm'

ccfa6f1

TobiHartmann approved these changes Nov 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

vnkozlov approved these changes Nov 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

Add some comment

89d00e1

TobiHartmann approved these changes Nov 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Nov 11, 2021

openjdk bot closed this Nov 11, 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 sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Nov 11, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

JDK-8275854: C2: assert(stride_con != 0) failed: missed some peephole opt #6099

JDK-8275854: C2: assert(stride_con != 0) failed: missed some peephole opt #6099

casparcwang commented Oct 25, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 25, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 25, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Oct 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

rwestrel commented Oct 25, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

TobiHartmann left a comment

rwestrel commented Oct 28, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021

rwestrel left a comment

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021 •

edited

Loading

casparcwang commented Nov 4, 2021

TobiHartmann left a comment

vnkozlov left a comment

casparcwang commented Nov 11, 2021

casparcwang commented Nov 11, 2021

TobiHartmann left a comment

casparcwang commented Nov 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 11, 2021

huishi-hs commented Nov 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 11, 2021

JDK-8275854: C2: assert(stride_con != 0) failed: missed some peephole opt #6099

JDK-8275854: C2: assert(stride_con != 0) failed: missed some peephole opt #6099

Conversation

casparcwang commented Oct 25, 2021 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Contributors

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 25, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 25, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Oct 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Webrevs

rwestrel commented Oct 25, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 26, 2021 • edited Loading

TobiHartmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rwestrel commented Oct 28, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 29, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021

rwestrel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021 • edited Loading

casparcwang commented Nov 4, 2021

TobiHartmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vnkozlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

casparcwang commented Nov 11, 2021

casparcwang commented Nov 11, 2021

TobiHartmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

casparcwang commented Nov 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 11, 2021

huishi-hs commented Nov 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 11, 2021

openjdk bot commented Nov 11, 2021

casparcwang commented Oct 25, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Oct 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

casparcwang commented Oct 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Oct 29, 2021 •

edited

Loading