RFR (S) 8140650: (preliminary) Method::is_accessor should cover getters and setters for all types (original) (raw)

Aleksey Shipilev aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com
Wed Oct 28 16:32:12 UTC 2015

Well, if I read the current inlining policy right, accessors are exempt from MaxInlineLevel checks, profile hotness checks (accessors are assumed hot), etc.

Since inlining accessors does not bloat the IR and/or generated code (which conservative inlining policy is protecting against), it seems silly to ignore these easy inline targets. This is why, I think, inlining policy treats accessors differently.

The actual issue is not about treating the accessors in compiler, but rather about runtime disregarding many methods which are, in fact, trivial accessors.

Thanks, -Aleksey

On 10/28/2015 07:16 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:

Under what practical conditions would they fail to inline otherwise, given how tiny they are? MaxInlineSize already disregards frequency.

sent from my phone On Oct 28, 2015 11:32 AM, "Aleksey Shipilev" <aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com <mailto:aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com>> wrote: Hi, I have been reading the compiler code recently to check if setters/getters are actually treated specially in inline policy. They do, and inliner relies on Method::isaccessor to detect them. But then I realized that Method::isaccessor implementation only accepts the specific shapes of getters, and completely ignores setters (contrary to what is spelled in the "doc" comment!): https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8140650 This makes compilers to ignore many trivial methods that we might otherwise inline when all other inline hints have failed. With that in mind, I did a proof-of-concept change, which passes JPRT and a new compiler-specific regression test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8140650/webrev.00/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eshade/8140650/webrev.00/> I'll run more testing, after we figure the fate for interpreter.cpp change. It is prompted by Zero's fast accessor implementation that only accepts the specific getter shape. Now, we can go three routes: a) Ignore the issue, and keep Method::issimpleaccessor; b) Fix Zero's fast accessor to accept all the shapes. c) Remove fast accessors from Zero (I see UseFastAccessorMethods is marked as obsolete), and thus probably remove the notion of "accessor" from interpreter completely (?); Current patch does (a), and I'm leaning to keep it that way, letting Zero to handle more in future. If we care more about Zero, we might go for (b) -- although it seems to deserve a separate follow-up RFE. And if we don't, we can go for (c). Thoughts? Thanks, -Aleksey

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list