On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:33:11 GMT, Chen Liang <li...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> As John Rose has pointed out in this issue, the current j.l.r.Proxy based >> implementation of MethodHandleProxies.asInterface has a few issues: >> 1. Exposes too much information via Proxy supertype (and WrapperInstance >> interface) >> 2. Does not allow future expansion to support SAM[^1] abstract classes >> 3. Slow (in fact, very slow) >> >> This patch addresses all 3 problems: >> 1. It updates the WrapperInstance methods to take an `Empty` to avoid method >> clashes >> 2. This patch obtains already generated classes from a ClassValue by the >> requested interface type; the ClassValue can later be updated to compute >> implementation generation for abstract classes as well. >> 3. This patch's faster than old implementation in general. >> >> Benchmark for revision 17: >> >> Benchmark Mode Cnt >> Score Error Units >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.baselineAllocCompute avgt 15 >> 1.503 ± 0.021 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.baselineCompute avgt 15 >> 0.269 ± 0.005 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.testCall avgt 15 >> 1.806 ± 0.018 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.testCreate avgt 15 >> 17.332 ± 0.210 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstance.testCreateCall avgt 15 >> 19.296 ± 1.371 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callDoable avgt 5 >> 0.419 ± 0.004 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callHandle avgt 5 >> 0.421 ± 0.004 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callInterfaceInstance avgt 5 >> 1.731 ± 0.018 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.callLambda avgt 5 >> 0.418 ± 0.003 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantDoable avgt 5 >> 0.263 ± 0.003 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantHandle avgt 5 >> 0.262 ± 0.002 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantInterfaceInstance avgt 5 >> 0.262 ± 0.002 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.constantLambda avgt 5 >> 0.267 ± 0.019 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCall.direct avgt 5 >> 0.266 ± 0.013 ns/op >> MethodHandleProxiesAsIFInstanceCreate.createCallInterfaceInstance avgt 5 >> 18.057 ± 0.182 ... > > Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge > or a rebase. The pull request now contains 38 commits: > > - SecurityManager fixed, minimize changes > - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface > - Some changes per Mandy's review. SecurityManager test fails in this patch > - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface > - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface > - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface > - stage, needs to fix is mh proxy instance check > - Merge branch 'master' into explore/mhp-iface > - Remove assertion, no longer true with teleport definition in MHP > - Fix tabs, and tests about modules and constructor access > - ... and 28 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/05e9c41e...07cc1279 Thanks for the update. src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandleProxies.java line 481: > 479: MethodHandle originalTypeField; > 480: try { > 481: originalTypeField = new > Lookup(type).findStaticGetter(type, ORIGINAL_TYPE_NAME, Class.class); If some random class `X` has the field "originalType" with value `I`, `isWrapperClass` would cause spinning a MH proxy class `I` as it calls `getProxyClassInfo` and return true. `getProxyClassInfo` should be only called from `asInterfaceInstance`. I think this can be done by having a `WeakHashMap<Class<?>, Boolean>` and `getProxyClassInfo` puts an entry with `TRUE` when a new proxy class is generated. test/jdk/java/lang/reflect/Proxy/ProxyModuleMapping.java line 42: > 40: // unnamed module gets access to sun.invoke package (e.g. via > --add-exports) > 41: new ProxyModuleMapping(sun.invoke.WrapperInstance.class).test(); > 42: The test case is to verify that proxy can access qualified exports. So better to keep this test case and replace with an internal interface e.g. `jdk.internal.misc.VM.BufferPool`? ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#pullrequestreview-1503496814 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#discussion_r1245624265 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#discussion_r1245462594
