(original) (raw)

Regarding interpreter restart/uncommon\_trap, for this kind of problem, the compiler has a better chance when it does not bind them to a precise bytecode restart location right from the start of the compilation. The branches can then be reordered and eliminated to achieve what you want.

For example with Graal, on your code i get:

# {method} {0x00007f442685e318} 'f' '(I)I' in 'Test'

# parm0: rsi = int

# \[sp+0x20\] (sp of caller)

0x00007f44288d2ba0: mov qword ptr \[rsp-0x14000\],rax

0x00007f44288d2ba8: sub rsp,0x18

0x00007f44288d2bac: mov qword ptr \[rsp+0x10\],rbp

0x00007f44288d2bb1: cmp esi,0x2

0x00007f44288d2bb4: jne 0x00007f44288d2bca

0x00007f44288d2bba: mov eax,0x3

0x00007f44288d2bbf: add rsp,0x18

0x00007f44288d2bc3: test dword ptr \[rip+0x1a8d743d\],eax ; {poll\_return}

0x00007f44288d2bc9: ret

0x00007f44288d2bca: mov dword ptr \[r15+0x8\],0xffffffed

0x00007f44288d2bd2: mov qword ptr \[r15+0x10\],r12

0x00007f44288d2bd6: call 0x00007f4428047341 ; OopMap{off=59}

;\*iload\_0 {reexecute=1 rethrow=0 return\_oop=0}

; - Test::f@0 (line 10)

; {runtime\_call}

Which is more or less what you wanted modulo frame setup/tear down and poll\_return. In this deopt case, execution restarts at bci 0 (it re-executes the method from the start). In general it would re-execute from the last side-effect.

Gilles

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:35 AM Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok I see the complication with the restart in interpreter (I think that's what Remi was saying as well). I suspect that most checks will tend to not have side effects (bad practice), but of course there may be some and for more complex scenarios sufficient inlining would need to occur. For simple cases however, it's a pity since the VM has enough info and deopt ability to do this safely. The real case i had was checks against enum constants, but the int example is just as good.

As for switch, I didn't try it this time but we had a thread on here a few months back where I was complaining about the switch not handling the same type of scenario, and John Rose mentioned it's a known issue with switches (i.e. no profile based optimization) :). In addition, I find some of the switch codegen suboptimal (e.g. same cmp performed back to back with just a different jump after). So I then tried if/else chain given that's supposedly profiled, and it is but apparently the codegen isn't what I thought it would be. I was basically hoping for a single class CHA-like analysis for branches :).

sent from my phone

On Jun 4, 2015 8:15 PM, "Vladimir Kozlov" <vladimir.kozlov@oracle.com> wrote:

Uncommon traps are bound to bytecode. If we hit uncommon trap, for example, for (x == 1) test then after deoptimization Interpreter will execute only 'return 2;'. If generated code as you suggested we need to bind uncommon trap to the BCI of the first (x == 0) check so it will be executed in Interpreter after deoptimization.

So it is not simple optimization but doable for cases like this (integer checks).

Did you tried 'switch' instead?

Regards,
Vladimir

On 6/4/15 4:44 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:

By the way, the context for this example is the following. Suppose you
have a class with such a method. This class is then used in different
java processes such that in each instance only one of those branches is
ever taken and the other compares have no side effects. Ideally, the
compiled code would favor that fast path, which may not be the first arm
of the if/else chain.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd@gmail.com
vitalyd@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks for the response Vladimir. In this case though, can the JIT
not see that the cmp bytecodes of non-taken branches have no side
effects and remove them altogether? Is that just deemed not worth
the cost or is there something fundamental I'm missing here?

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Vladimir Kozlov
<vladimir.kozlov@oracle.com vladimir.kozlov@oracle.com>> wrote:

VM does not profiling values. We profiling branches.
When C2 construct control flow graph it follows bytecode. And it
can't eliminate cmp code based only on branch profiling.
Profiling still shows that all cmp bytecodes are always executed
\- only branches are not taken. We would eliminate tests if they
were on non taken branch.
We generate uncommon traps for branches which were not taken
based on profiling.

Vladimir


On 6/4/15 4:20 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:

Hi,

Suppose you have a method like this:

private static int f(final int x) {
if (x == 0)
return 1;
else if (x == 1)
return 2;
else if (x == 2)
return 3;
return 4;

}

If I then call it with x=2 always, the generated asm is not
what I
expect (8u40 with C2 compiler)

\# parm0: rsi = int
\# \[sp+0x30\] (sp of caller)
0x00007fcc5970c520: mov %eax,-0x14000(%rsp)
0x00007fcc5970c527: push %rbp
0x00007fcc5970c528: sub $0x20,%rsp
;\*synchronization entry

0x00007fcc5970c52c: test %esi,%esi
0x00007fcc5970c52e: je 0x00007fcc5970c55d ;\*ifne

0x00007fcc5970c530: cmp $0x1,%esi
0x00007fcc5970c533: je 0x00007fcc5970c571 ;\*if\_icmpne

0x00007fcc5970c535: cmp $0x2,%esi
0x00007fcc5970c538: jne 0x00007fcc5970c54b ;\*if\_icmpne

0x00007fcc5970c53a: mov $0x3,%eax
0x00007fcc5970c53f: add $0x20,%rsp
0x00007fcc5970c543: pop %rbp
0x00007fcc5970c544: test %eax,0x5e0dab6(%rip)300000
#
0x00007fcc5f51a000
;
{poll\_return}
0x00007fcc5970c54a: retq


It's checking the if conditions in order, and then jumps to
some runtime
calls (I'm assuming that's for deopt to restore pruned
branches? Cause I
don't see anything that returns 1 or 2 otherwise). Why is
this code not
favoring x=2? I'd have thought this code would be something
like (after
epilogue):

cmp $0x2, %esi
jne
mov $0x3, %eax
retq

Thanks