8253285: Some java/util/StringJoiner tests do not explicitly specify required -XX:+CompactStrings #223
Conversation
…required -XX:+CompactStrings Signed-off-by: Andrew Leonard <[email protected]>
|
Hi @andrew-m-leonard, welcome to this OpenJDK project and thanks for contributing! We do not recognize you as Contributor and need to ensure you have signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA). If you have not signed the OCA, please follow the instructions. Please fill in your GitHub username in the "Username" field of the application. Once you have signed the OCA, please let us know by writing If you already are an OpenJDK Author, Committer or Reviewer, please click here to open a new issue so that we can record that fact. Please use "Add GitHub user andrew-m-leonard" as summary for the issue. If you are contributing this work on behalf of your employer and your employer has signed the OCA, please let us know by writing |
|
@andrew-m-leonard The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request: When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an RFR email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the |
|
/covered IBM |
|
Thank you! Please allow for a few business days to verify that your employer has signed the OCA. Also, please note that pull requests that are pending an OCA check will not usually be evaluated, so your patience is appreciated! |
bridgekeeper
bot
removed
oca
|
@andrew-m-leonard This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. In addition to the automated checks, the change must also fulfill all project specific requirements After integration, the commit message will be:
Since the source branch of this PR was last updated there have been 4 commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid automatic rebasing, please merge As you do not have Committer status in this projectan existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@RogerRiggs, @JimLaskey) but any other Committer may sponsor as well. ➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type |
|
/integrate |
|
@RogerRiggs thanks Roger, please can you Sponsor this PR ? thanks |
|
@andrew-m-leonard |
|
/sponsor |
openjdk
bot
added
integrated
|
@RogerRiggs @andrew-m-leonard Since your change was applied there have been 4 commits pushed to the
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. Pushed as commit 24765e4. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
After JDK-8283091, the loop below can be vectorized partially.
Statement 1 can be vectorized but statement 2 can't.
```
// int[] iArr; long[] lArrFld; int i1,i2;
for (i1 = 6; i1 < 227; i1++) {
iArr[i1] += lArrFld[i1]++; // statement 1
iArr[i1 + 1] -= (i2++); // statement 2
}
```
But we got incorrect results because the vector packs of iArr are
scheduled incorrectly like:
```
...
load_vector XMM1,[R8 + openjdk#16 + R11 << openjdk#2]
movl RDI, [R8 + openjdk#20 + R11 << openjdk#2] # int
load_vector XMM2,[R9 + openjdk#8 + R11 << openjdk#3]
subl RDI, R11 # int
vpaddq XMM3,XMM2,XMM0 ! add packedL
store_vector [R9 + openjdk#8 + R11 << openjdk#3],XMM3
vector_cast_l2x XMM2,XMM2 !
vpaddd XMM1,XMM2,XMM1 ! add packedI
addl RDI, openjdk#228 # int
movl [R8 + openjdk#20 + R11 << openjdk#2], RDI # int
movl RBX, [R8 + openjdk#24 + R11 << openjdk#2] # int
subl RBX, R11 # int
addl RBX, openjdk#227 # int
movl [R8 + openjdk#24 + R11 << openjdk#2], RBX # int
...
movl RBX, [R8 + openjdk#40 + R11 << openjdk#2] # int
subl RBX, R11 # int
addl RBX, openjdk#223 # int
movl [R8 + openjdk#40 + R11 << openjdk#2], RBX # int
movl RDI, [R8 + openjdk#44 + R11 << openjdk#2] # int
subl RDI, R11 # int
addl RDI, openjdk#222 # int
movl [R8 + openjdk#44 + R11 << openjdk#2], RDI # int
store_vector [R8 + openjdk#16 + R11 << openjdk#2],XMM1
...
```
simplified as:
```
load_vector iArr in statement 1
unvectorized loads/stores in statement 2
store_vector iArr in statement 1
```
We cannot pick the memory state from the first load for LoadI pack
here, as the LoadI vector operation must load the new values in memory
after iArr writes 'iArr[i1 + 1] - (i2++)' to 'iArr[i1 + 1]'(statement 2).
We must take the memory state of the last load where we have assigned
new values ('iArr[i1 + 1] - (i2++)') to the iArr array.
In JDK-8240281, we picked the memory state of the first load. Different
from the scenario in JDK-8240281, the store, which is dependent on an
earlier load here, is in a pack to be scheduled and the LoadI pack
depends on the last_mem. As designed[2], to schedule the StoreI pack,
all memory operations in another single pack should be moved in the same
direction. We know that the store in the pack depends on one of loads in
the LoadI pack, so the LoadI pack should be scheduled before the StoreI
pack. And the LoadI pack depends on the last_mem, so the last_mem must
be scheduled before the LoadI pack and also before the store pack.
Therefore, we need to take the memory state of the last load for the
LoadI pack here.
To fix it, the pack adds additional checks while picking the memory state
of the first load. When the store locates in a pack and the load pack
relies on the last_mem, we shouldn't choose the memory state of the
first load but choose the memory state of the last load.
[1]https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/0ae834105740f7cf73fe96be22e0f564ad29b18d/src/hotspot/share/opto/superword.cpp#L2380
[2]https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/0ae834105740f7cf73fe96be22e0f564ad29b18d/src/hotspot/share/opto/superword.cpp#L2232
Jira: ENTLLT-5482
Change-Id: I341d10b91957b60a1b4aff8116723e54083a5fb8
CustomizedGitHooks: yes
3 participants
Signed-off-by: Andrew Leonard [email protected]
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Download
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/223/head:pull/223$ git checkout pull/223