harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sergey Salishev" <sergey.i.salis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][performance] @Inline and @NoBoundsCheck annotation support
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:00:07 GMT
Hi,

I don't think JAPI would be a problem as the public API method can be turned
into a wrapper around private method with @Inline annotation. I think the
real problem for Jikes RVM is that adding annotations to the class libraries
is the modification of the third party code (GNU classpath) leading to
burden of supporting the modifications. The Harmony has slightly different
situation as the class libraries are already a part of it.

As @Inline and @NoBoundsCheck are only intended to be used in class
libraries I propose another option: just supply the JIT with the list of the
methods for these specific optimisations.

Nevertheless, I prefer using annotations in the code as it's the most
transparent demonstration of intentions.

Thanks,
Sergey.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Ian Rogers <rogers.email@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/4/28 Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
>  >
> > Ian Rogers wrote:
> >
> > > Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I had returned to idea to have @Inline and @NoBoundCheck annotation
> > > > support in classlib and Jitrino.
> > > > I will try to summarize the rationale for both these annotations:
> > > >
> > > >  1. @Inline. There are places where we're creating small methods to
> > > > get more consistent code, while we expect JIT should inline them to
> > > > reduce call penalty. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and
> > > > any JIT can miss the opportunities for inline. As classlib
> developers
> > > > we can dope our code with the hints saying "this method is really
> > > > should be inlined, as we know it would be the penalty leaving it not
> > > > inlined, just do it even when inline budget is exhausted". Jitrino
> > > > really have @Inline already as the part of vmmagic package, but I
> want
> > > > to see these annotations visible from the classlib part.
> > > >
> > > > That's the case of new HashMap [1] for example:
> > > >
> > > >    /*
> > > >     * Contract-related functionality
> > > >     */
> > > >    static int computeHashCode(Object key) {
> > > >        return key.hashCode();
> > > >    }
> > > >
> > > >    static boolean areEqualKeys(Object key1, Object key2) {
> > > >        return key1.equals(key2);
> > > >    }
> > > >
> > > >    static boolean areEqualValues(Object value1, Object value2) {
> > > >        return value1.equals(value2);
> > > >    }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  2. @NoBoundCheck. There are also cases in which we definitely know
> > > > that no bound check need to be performed. This is the case of
> HashMap
> > > > again:
> > > >
> > > >    ...
> > > >            int hash = computeHashCode(key);
> > > >            index = hash & (elementData.length - 1);
> > > >            entry = elementData[index];
> > > >    ...
> > > >
> > > >   Of course, good JIT compiler should also resolve such patterns and
> > > > eliminate bounds check here, but we can again hint the compiler they
> > > > are not necessary. There's a complication though that such pragma
> > > > could violate security if used in user code, but we could restrict
> its
> > > > usage to bootstrap classes only. ABCD gurus (Egor?) could shed more
> > > > light whether it's possible to implement on JIT side.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think? I can elaborate with proof-of-concept patches to
> > > > see what advantage it would bring.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Aleksey.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5791
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Hi Aleksey,
> > >
> > > an alternate approach may be to use a bytecode engineering library.
> For
> > example, Jikes RVM uses ASM to add annotations to the library during
> > bootstrap compilation [1].
> > >
> >
> >  Are you advocating using bytecode modification specifically over source
> > annotations, or just pointing it out as an alternative?
> >
> >  Since Harmony has the class library implementation I'm more inclined to
> > consider this directly in the source code.
> >
> >  Regards,
> >  Tim
>
> I'm proposing it as an alternative. For the RVM modifying the Java
> files wasn't an option, but I believe even if it were considered it
> would have been unpopular as tools like JAPI would have highlighted
> the difference of the annotated API with that of the standard class
> library.
>
> Ian
> --
> Third International Workshop on Implementation, Compilation,
> Optimization of Object-Oriented Languages, Programs and Systems
> (ICOOOLPS 2008)
> Submissions/Notification/Conference: May 4th/May 19th/July 7th
> Paphos (Cyprus) http://icoolps.loria.fr
>
>  > > A few of the other annotations we use are:
> > >
> > > @Pure to indicate that a method can be called at compile time if its
> > arguments are constants. This allows us to turn
> > BigInteger.ONE.add(BigInteger.TEN) into a literal BigInteger holding the
> > value 11.
> > >
> > > @NoEscapes indicates that if an aggregate (object or array) is passed
> as
> > an argument to a method, and this call is the sole reason an aggregate
> > escapes, the object can be replaced by scalars. We use this to avoid
> stack
> > trace generation when the stack trace is never read.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ian Rogers
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> http://jikesrvm.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jikesrvm/rvmroot/trunk/tools/asm-tasks/src/org/jikesrvm/tools/asm/AnnotationAdder.java?revision=14102&view=markup
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message