8290706: Remove the support for inline contiguous allocations #9576

shipilev · 2022-07-20T17:39:28Z

See the bug for rationale and link to RFC.

This removes the 3rd allocation path (first two being TLAB and native GC interface), that is used by Serial/Parallel when TLABs are not available. There is little sense in keeping this code, especially since it requires supporting a bunch of platform-specific assembly.

Additional testing:

Linux x86_64 fastdebug tier1
Linux x86_32 fastdebug tier1
Linux AArch64 fastdebug tier1
Linux x86_64 Zero build
Linux AArch64 cross-build (attn @theRealAph, @adinn)
Linux ARM cross-build (attn @bulasevich, @snazarkin)
Linux S390X cross-build (attn @backwaterred, @RealLucy)
Linux PPC64 cross-build (attn @TheRealMDoerr, @reinrich)
Linux RISC-V cross-build (attn @RealFYang)

Apart from x86 and AArch64, I only verified the cross-compilation builds pass, no other testing is done.

I did not touch the JVMCI interfaces, since I am not sure what is the proper protocol for JVMCI changes.

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-8290706: Remove the support for inline contiguous allocations

Reviewers

Erik Österlund (@fisk - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to dd2f3ea2
Andrew Haley (@theRealAph - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to dd2f3ea2
Richard Reingruber (@reinrich - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to dd2f3ea2
Fei Yang (@RealFYang - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to dd2f3ea2
Tobias Hartmann (@TobiHartmann - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9576/head:pull/9576
$ git checkout pull/9576

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/9576
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9576/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 9576

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 9576

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9576.diff

bridgekeeper · 2022-07-20T17:40:56Z

👋 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 · 2022-07-20T17:43:34Z

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

hotspot

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 · 2022-07-21T05:40:32Z

Webrevs

reinrich · 2022-07-21T08:25:06Z

jtreg:test/hotspot/jtreg:tier1 succeeded (without gtests) on ppc64le. More tests overnight.

bulasevich · 2022-07-21T13:57:22Z

:hotspot and :tier1 is OK on ARM32

RealFYang · 2022-07-22T06:49:11Z

Performed tier1 test on riscv64-linux. Result looks good.

snazarkin · 2022-07-22T11:38:10Z

Got assert on arm-server-fastdebug. (Update) master seems affected as well. So this is an unrelated issue.

#  Internal Error (/home/user/jdk/src/hotspot/cpu/arm/arm.ad:240), pid=24155, tid=24168
#  assert(constant_table.size() == consts_size) failed: must be: 208 == 200
#
# JRE version: OpenJDK Runtime Environment (20.0) (fastdebug build 20-internal-adhoc.user.jdk)
# Java VM: OpenJDK Server VM (fastdebug 20-internal-adhoc.user.jdk, mixed mode, g1 gc, linux-arm)
# Problematic frame:
# V  [libjvm.so+0xe2ed8]  MachConstantBaseNode::emit(CodeBuffer&, PhaseRegAlloc*) const+0x22b

shipilev · 2022-07-25T08:22:45Z

All right, so the current status is that all platforms (except for S390X test) are checked. GHA are also happy.

Please do formal reviews :)

RealLucy · 2022-07-25T08:27:55Z

All right, so the current status is that all platforms (except for S390X test) are checked. GHA are also happy.

I do not see a particular risk for s390x, mainly because the path being removed was never implemented for s390x.
@backwaterred may be able to build and run tier1 tests to add some safety to my assumptions.

fisk

Looks good in general. However, the StorePConditionalNode is dead after this change, and I think we should remove that one as well while we are at it. AFAIK it is only used for the atomic bump pointer code. There is a whole bunch of StorePConditional matching rules in all the ad files that can be nuked, and a few mentions of Op_StorePConditional in C2 that can be removed.

shipilev · 2022-07-25T09:05:16Z

Looks good in general. However, the StorePConditionalNode is dead after this change, and I think we should remove that one as well while we are at it. AFAIK it is only used for the atomic bump pointer code. There is a whole bunch of StorePConditional matching rules in all the ad files that can be nuked, and a few mentions of Op_StorePConditional in C2 that can be removed.

True. I'd rather do that after this change lands, as to not invalidate the platform testing already done here. It would be also beneficial for potential bisects to have two atomic commits -- one removing the code from allocation paths, and another removing the C2 nodes and match rules. WDYT?

theRealAph

Good. It's nice to get rid of that code.

theRealAph · 2022-07-25T13:59:20Z

Looks good in general. However, the StorePConditionalNode is dead after this change, and I think we should remove that one as well while we are at it. AFAIK it is only used for the atomic bump pointer code. There is a whole bunch of StorePConditional matching rules in all the ad files that can be nuked, and a few mentions of Op_StorePConditional in C2 that can be removed.

True. I'd rather do that after this change lands, as to not invalidate the platform testing already done here. It would be also beneficial for potential bisects to have two atomic commits -- one removing the code from allocation paths, and another removing the C2 nodes and match rules. WDYT?

Yes, I agree. There's more cruft in there.

openjdk · 2022-07-25T14:00:46Z

@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:

8290706: Remove the support for inline contiguous allocations

Reviewed-by: eosterlund, aph, rrich, fyang, thartmann

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 33 new commits pushed to the master branch:

8939095: 8289996: Fix array range check hoisting for some scaled loop iv
da9cc5c: 8290806: Only add eager reclaim task to G1 post evacuate tasks if there were candidates
330adc0: 8290969: DumpClassListCLDClosure incorrectly uses ResizeableResourceHashtable
28bbdc5: 8290972: ProblemList java/lang/ProcessBuilder/PipelineLeaksFD.java
a6faf5d: 8290485: [vector] REVERSE_BYTES for byte type should not emit any instructions
0ca5cb1: 8290834: Improve potentially confusing documentation on collection of profiling information
7c3cfd1: 8290557: tools/jpackage/share/AddLauncherTest.java#id1 failed with "ERROR: Failed: Check icon file"
0ca74f5: 8289659: Refactor I/O stream copying to use InputStream.readAllBytes in X509CertPath
1e270ea: 8290780: AArch64: Crash in c2 nmethod running RunThese30M.java
b17269a: 8290959: Consistently use "grey" instead of "gray" in GC code
... and 23 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/6346c3338c23255a43b179cbd618990c31c2eabc...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.

reinrich

No findings in our CI testing which includes JCK and JTREG tests on the standard platforms and also on Linux/PPC64le.

I've reviewed the ppc changes. They look good to me.

Thanks, Richard.

fisk · 2022-07-25T14:48:50Z

Looks good in general. However, the StorePConditionalNode is dead after this change, and I think we should remove that one as well while we are at it. AFAIK it is only used for the atomic bump pointer code. There is a whole bunch of StorePConditional matching rules in all the ad files that can be nuked, and a few mentions of Op_StorePConditional in C2 that can be removed.

True. I'd rather do that after this change lands, as to not invalidate the platform testing already done here. It would be also beneficial for potential bisects to have two atomic commits -- one removing the code from allocation paths, and another removing the C2 nodes and match rules. WDYT?

Sounds good to me.

fisk

Looks good.

RealFYang

RISCV-specific changes looks good to me. Thanks.

shipilev · 2022-07-26T06:02:31Z

All right, thank you all, I will be integrating soon then.

@TobiHartmann, @vnkozlov -- want to sanity check the C2 refactor?

shipilev · 2022-07-26T07:15:10Z

Sounds good to me.

FYI, that would hopefully be in #9636 -- we can remove quite a bit more than just StorePConditional :)

bulasevich · 2022-07-26T09:05:38Z

Got assert on arm-server-fastdebug. (Update) master seems affected as well. So this is an unrelated issue.

Let me will look into it. JDK-8291003

TobiHartmann

JIT changes look good to me.

src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/c2/barrierSetC2.cpp

shipilev · 2022-07-26T17:17:27Z

All right, thank you all. I am integrating and dealing with the rest of the issues, if any, later.

/integrate

openjdk · 2022-07-26T17:19:27Z

Going to push as commit 8159a1a.
Since your change was applied there have been 35 commits pushed to the master branch:

7318b22: 8289551: Conversions between bit representations of half precision values and floats
2ae8e31: 8290669: Fix wording in sun.security.ec
8939095: 8289996: Fix array range check hoisting for some scaled loop iv
da9cc5c: 8290806: Only add eager reclaim task to G1 post evacuate tasks if there were candidates
330adc0: 8290969: DumpClassListCLDClosure incorrectly uses ResizeableResourceHashtable
28bbdc5: 8290972: ProblemList java/lang/ProcessBuilder/PipelineLeaksFD.java
a6faf5d: 8290485: [vector] REVERSE_BYTES for byte type should not emit any instructions
0ca5cb1: 8290834: Improve potentially confusing documentation on collection of profiling information
7c3cfd1: 8290557: tools/jpackage/share/AddLauncherTest.java#id1 failed with "ERROR: Failed: Check icon file"
0ca74f5: 8289659: Refactor I/O stream copying to use InputStream.readAllBytes in X509CertPath
... and 25 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/6346c3338c23255a43b179cbd618990c31c2eabc...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2022-07-26T17:19:44Z

@shipilev Pushed as commit 8159a1a.

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

Work

0d106af

openjdk bot added the hotspot hotspot-dev@openjdk.org label Jul 20, 2022

shipilev marked this pull request as ready for review July 21, 2022 05:34

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jul 21, 2022

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8290706-remove-inline-contig

dd2f3ea

fisk suggested changes Jul 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

theRealAph approved these changes Jul 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jul 25, 2022

reinrich approved these changes Jul 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

fisk approved these changes Jul 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

RealFYang approved these changes Jul 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2022

8291000: C2: Purge LoadPLocked and Store*Conditional nodes #9636

Closed

12 tasks

TobiHartmann approved these changes Jul 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/c2/barrierSetC2.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Make sure stars are aligned

6a1c202

TobiHartmann approved these changes Jul 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jul 26, 2022

openjdk bot closed this Jul 26, 2022

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jul 26, 2022

shipilev deleted the JDK-8290706-remove-inline-contig branch September 5, 2022 13:48

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

8290706: Remove the support for inline contiguous allocations #9576

8290706: Remove the support for inline contiguous allocations #9576

shipilev commented Jul 20, 2022 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Jul 20, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 20, 2022

mlbridge bot commented Jul 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

reinrich commented Jul 21, 2022

bulasevich commented Jul 21, 2022

RealFYang commented Jul 22, 2022

snazarkin commented Jul 22, 2022 •

edited

Loading

shipilev commented Jul 25, 2022

RealLucy commented Jul 25, 2022

fisk left a comment

shipilev commented Jul 25, 2022

theRealAph left a comment

theRealAph commented Jul 25, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 25, 2022 •

edited

Loading

reinrich left a comment

fisk commented Jul 25, 2022

fisk left a comment

RealFYang left a comment

shipilev commented Jul 26, 2022

shipilev commented Jul 26, 2022

bulasevich commented Jul 26, 2022 •

edited

Loading

TobiHartmann left a comment

shipilev commented Jul 26, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 26, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 26, 2022

8290706: Remove the support for inline contiguous allocations #9576

8290706: Remove the support for inline contiguous allocations #9576

Conversation

shipilev commented Jul 20, 2022 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Jul 20, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 20, 2022

mlbridge bot commented Jul 21, 2022 • edited Loading

Webrevs

reinrich commented Jul 21, 2022

bulasevich commented Jul 21, 2022

RealFYang commented Jul 22, 2022

snazarkin commented Jul 22, 2022 • edited Loading

shipilev commented Jul 25, 2022

RealLucy commented Jul 25, 2022

fisk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shipilev commented Jul 25, 2022

theRealAph left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

theRealAph commented Jul 25, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 25, 2022 • edited Loading

reinrich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fisk commented Jul 25, 2022

fisk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RealFYang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shipilev commented Jul 26, 2022

shipilev commented Jul 26, 2022

bulasevich commented Jul 26, 2022 • edited Loading

TobiHartmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shipilev commented Jul 26, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 26, 2022

openjdk bot commented Jul 26, 2022

shipilev commented Jul 20, 2022 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jul 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

snazarkin commented Jul 22, 2022 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jul 25, 2022 •

edited

Loading

bulasevich commented Jul 26, 2022 •

edited

Loading