On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:58:14 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> looser semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data also
>> contains the klass forcing this to be something that the GC has to take into
>> account everywhere.
>>
>> This patch introduces an alternative solution where locking only uses the
>> lock bits of the `markWord` and inflation does not override and displace the
>> `markWord`. This is done by keeping associations between objects and
>> `ObjectMonitor*` in an external hash table. Different caching techniques are
>> used to speedup lookups from compiled code.
>>
>> A diagnostic VM option is introduced called `UseObjectMonitorTable`. It is
>> only supported in combination with the LM_LIGHTWEIGHT locking mode (the
>> default).
>>
>> This patch has been evaluated to be performance neutral when
>> `UseObjectMonitorTable` is turned off (the default).
>>
>> Below is a more detailed explanation of this change and how `LM_LIGHTWEIGHT`
>> and `UseObjectMonitorTable` works.
>>
>> # Cleanups
>>
>> Cleaned up displaced header usage for:
>> * BasicLock
>> * Contains some Zero changes
>> * Renames one exported JVMCI field
>> * ObjectMonitor
>> * Updates comments and tests consistencies
>>
>> # Refactoring
>>
>> `ObjectMonitor::enter` has been refactored an a
>> `ObjectMonitorContentionMark` witness object has been introduced to the
>> signatures. Which signals that the contentions reference counter is being
>> held. More details are given below in the section about deflation.
>>
>> The initial purpose of this was to allow `UseObjectMonitorTable` to interact
>> more seamlessly with the `ObjectMonitor::enter` code.
>>
>> _There is even more `ObjectMonitor` refactoring which can be done here to
>> create a more understandable and enforceable API. There are a handful of
>> invariants / assumptions which are not always explicitly asserted which
>> could be trivially abstracted and verified by the type system by using
>> similar witness objects._
>>
>> # LightweightSynchronizer
>>
>> Working on adapting and incorporating the following section as a comment in
>> the source code
>>
>> ## Fast Locking
>>
>> CAS on locking bits in markWord.
>> 0b00 (Fast Locked) <--> 0b01 (Unlocked)
>>
>> When locking and 0b00 (Fast Locked) is observed, it may be beneficial to
>> avoid inflating by spinning a bit.
>>
>> If 0b10 (Inflated) is observed or there is to...
>
> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> Missing DEBUG_ONLY
src/hotspot/share/interpreter/zero/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp line 632:
> 630: bool success = false;
> 631: if (LockingMode == LM_LEGACY) {
> 632: // Traditional lightweight locking.
The if-statement is for legacy locking so the comment about lightweight
locking seems wrong.
src/hotspot/share/interpreter/zero/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp line 736:
> 734: bool success = false;
> 735: if (LockingMode == LM_LEGACY) {
> 736: // traditional lightweight locking
The if-statement is for legacy locking so the comment about lightweight
locking seems wrong.
src/hotspot/share/interpreter/zero/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp line 1671:
> 1669: bool success = false;
> 1670: if (LockingMode == LM_LEGACY) {
> 1671: // traditional lightweight locking
The if-statement is for legacy locking so the comment about lightweight
locking seems wrong.
src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnvBase.cpp line 1503:
> 1501:
> 1502: if (mon != nullptr) {
> 1503: assert(mon != nullptr, "must have monitor");
With the new if-statement on L1502, the assert is not needed.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1714439929
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1714440641
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1714441506
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1714448544
