RFR JDK-8011200 (was 7143928) : (coll) Optimize for Empty ArrayList and HashMap (original) (raw)

Vitaly Davidovich vitalyd at gmail.com
Wed Apr 10 23:33:30 UTC 2013

The null check jumps should be taken care of by branch prediction; as long as they're predictable, penalty on OOO CPU is minimal. So modern CPUs don't like mispredicted branches I'd say, not just any jump. On Apr 10, 2013 7:23 PM, "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

On 04/10/2013 11:26 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:

I'm willing to accept John as an authority on hotspot optimization. I'm surprised that null checks aren't more close to free in part because recent jsr166 code has been introducing more explicit null checks, sometimes in code where the reference being checked is "known" not to be null.

Martin null check that are never null are free when the interpreter has never (or rarely) sees a null at a specific callsite because in that case, the JIT doesn't generate a null check and let the CPU/MMU do a fault (the VM has a signal handler to be able to come back from death :) If you set a field to null, the profiler will see the null and will not use this optimization, that why in this case, it's better to have an empty array instead of null. BTW, the nullcheck in assembler cost you almost nothing anyway but the jump associated with it has a cost. Modern CPUs do not like to jump. Rémi

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Mike Duigou <mike.duigou at oracle.com_ _>wrote: On Apr 9 2013, at 19:56 , Martin Buchholz wrote: The use of an empty array rather than null was suggested by John Rose who said: I recommend an empty array rather than null as a sentinel value for two reasons: 1. The JVM prefers to merge null checks into load or store instructions (so-called "implicit null checks") because it removes an explicit branch. But it only does so if the probability of nulls is zero or very low. But using null as a sentinel for common states (e.g., empty collection) defeats this optimization. 2. For power-of-two sized structures (HashMap) we can optimize away an array range check in the presence of a zero-length check. Since most uses of a variable-sized collection load and test the array length, the sentinel check can easily be overloaded onto this test. If null is not used, then the (safety-mandated) null check is (usually) merged into the load of the length. If the table is power-of-two-sized, then only the zero check remains, and the array range check may be removed. This is thought to be the best code for a frequent load from a possibly-empty collection. Mike asked, "what about empty collection?" This is a reasonable thing to use, but it has a cost. The JVM uses inline caches and type profiles to simplify its optimized code; these techniques "win" when at a given use point (individual call to Map.get, for example) there is only one class present, even if the interface is totally general. (This is the so-called "monomorphic" case.) If the application uses (say) only HashMaps for both empty and non-empty maps, then this optimization can win big. It can be broken, on the other hand, if the application begins to use one other type for some other case (such as empty maps). In these cases, it is better to overload the "am I empty?" test on some other loaded value, such as a null or (better) an array length.

Mike

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list