On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:11:30 GMT, Roman Kennke <rken...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This is the main body of the JEP 450: Compact Object Headers (Experimental).
>> 
>> It is also a follow-up to #20640, which now also includes (and supersedes) 
>> #20603 and #20605, plus the Tiny Class-Pointers parts that have been 
>> previously missing.
>> 
>> Main changes:
>>  - Introduction of the (experimental) flag UseCompactObjectHeaders. All 
>> changes in this PR are protected by this flag. The purpose of the flag is to 
>> provide a fallback, in case that users unexpectedly observe problems with 
>> the new implementation. The intention is that this flag will remain 
>> experimental and opt-in for at least one release, then make it on-by-default 
>> and diagnostic (?), and eventually deprecate and obsolete it. However, there 
>> are a few unknowns in that plan, specifically, we may want to further 
>> improve compact headers to 4 bytes, we are planning to enhance the Klass* 
>> encoding to support virtually unlimited number of Klasses, at which point we 
>> could also obsolete UseCompressedClassPointers.
>>  - The compressed Klass* can now be stored in the mark-word of objects. In 
>> order to be able to do this, we are add some changes to GC forwarding (see 
>> below) to protect the relevant (upper 22) bits of the mark-word. Significant 
>> parts of this PR deal with loading the compressed Klass* from the mark-word. 
>> This PR also changes some code paths (mostly in GCs) to be more careful when 
>> accessing Klass* (or mark-word or size) to be able to fetch it from the 
>> forwardee in case the object is forwarded.
>>  - Self-forwarding in GCs (which is used to deal with promotion failure) now 
>> uses a bit to indicate 'self-forwarding'. This is needed to preserve the 
>> crucial Klass* bits in the header. This also allows to get rid of 
>> preserved-header machinery in SerialGC and G1 (Parallel GC abuses 
>> preserved-marks to also find all other relevant oops).
>>  - Full GC forwarding now uses an encoding similar to compressed-oops. We 
>> have 40 bits for that, and can encode up to 8TB of heap. When exceeding 8TB, 
>> we turn off UseCompressedClassPointers (except in ZGC, which doesn't use the 
>> GC forwarding at all).
>>  - Instances can now have their base-offset (the offset where the field 
>> layouter starts to place fields) at offset 8 (instead of 12 or 16).
>>  - Arrays will now store their length at offset 8.
>>  - CDS can now write and read archives with the compressed header. However, 
>> it is not possible to read an archive that has been written with an opposite 
>> setting of UseCompactObjectHeaders. Some build machinery is added so that 
>> _co...
>
> Roman Kennke has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Fix FullGCForwarding initialization

@rkennke Can you please explain the changes in these tests:

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/c2/irTests/TestVectorizationMismatchedAccess.java
test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/c2/irTests/TestVectorizationNotRun.java
test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/loopopts/superword/TestAlignVector.java
test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/loopopts/superword/TestIndependentPacksWithCyclicDependency.java
test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/loopopts/superword/TestMulAddS2I.java


You added these IR rule restriction:
`@IR(applyIf = {"UseCompactObjectHeaders", "false"},`

This means that if `UseCompactObjectHeaders` is enabled, vectorization seems to 
be impacted - that could be concerning because it has a performance impact.

I have recently changed a few things in SuperWord, so maybe some of them can be 
removed, because they now vectorize anyway?

Of course some special tests may just rely on `UseCompactObjectHeaders == 
false` - but I would need some comments in the tests where you added it to 
justify why we add the restriction.

Please also test this patch with the cross combinations of 
`UseCompactObjectHeaders` and `AlignVector` enabled and disabled (and add 
`VerifyAlignVector` as well).

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20677#issuecomment-2342983487

Reply via email to