[concurrency-interest] JEP-159 Enhanced Class Redefinition vs Unsafe.___FieldOffset()

√iktor Ҡlang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 13:26:42 EDT 2013


To be honest, I see no way of solving this in a non-breaking fashion, but
I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong there.

Cheers,
√


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com>wrote:

>  On 06/17/2013 12:42 PM, Oleksandr Otenko wrote:
>
> Change the return type of the methods returning field offsets from int to
> FieldOffset. Now all references to FieldOffsets are accounted for.
>
>
> Perhaps the Unsafe API could be gradually replaced with some other more
> manageable API that would be "Safe", in addition to provide for class
> redefinition.
>
> The MethodHandle API is safe and at least for constant direct method
> handles it has been proven that it can be JIT-ed to fast in-lined code.
> Suppose that in addition to:
>
> Lookup.findGetter/findSetter
>
> There would also be:
>
> Lookup.findVolatileGetter/findVolatileSetter/findOrderedSetter
> Lookup.findCompareAndSwap/findGetAndSet/findGetAndAdd
>
> + the support for array access.
>
> Now that there is Unsafe.[load|store|full]Fence, the
> Unsafe.[put|get][Volatile|Ordered] or equivalents are not needed any more
> and only the replacements for CAS/GAS/GAA are needed.
>
> Regards, Peter
>
>
>
> Alex
>
> On 04/06/2013 21:19, Nathan Reynolds wrote:
>
> JEP 159 Enhanced Class Redefinition (see http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/159)
> will allow for adding and removing fields in a class.  Also, a field could
> be changed in size as well (e.g. long → int).  When the change happens, the
> heap is scanned for all of the instances of the class(es) and all of the
> instances are modified.  The cost is about that of a full GC.
>
> I think the original driver for JEP 159 was to enhance what debuggers can
> change on the fly as the program is running.  I envision using JEP 159 to
> remove dead fields, deal with fields used in a small percentage of
> instances (rarely used) and reduce the size of oversized fields.  Dead and
> rarely used fields account for 6.9% of an average heap.  Oversized fields
> account for 1.5% of an average heap.  By *occasionally* using JEP 159 at
> runtime, we could change the class definitions to save most of this space
> and hence improve GC times and perhaps response times.
>
> If I understand correctly, Unsafe.objectFieldOffset() and
> Unsafe.staticFieldOffset() return the number bytes from the beginning of
> the instance or class where the field is located.  This offset is typically
> obtained when the class is loaded or the instance is constructed.  For
> example, java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLongFieldUpdater$CASUpdater will
> get the offset in the constructor for the specified field and class.  It
> keeps this offset for the lifetime of the CASUpdater instance.  The field
> and class can be any loaded class.
>
> So, what will happen when JEP 159...
>
>    1. removes the field used by CASUpdater?  It seems like CASUpdater
>    will corrupt the instance or the object header of the next object.
>    2. adds or removes a different field and this shifts the field used by
>    CASUpdater?
>     3. changes the long field to an int?
>    4. adds or removes @Contended?  This will rearrange the fields in all
>    of the instances.
>
> CASUpdater is just one class.  What about all of the other classes which
> use or *will* use Unsafe.___FieldOffset?
>
> Maybe JEP 159 has already solved the problem.  If so, I would like to hear
> how.  If not, how can this problem be solved?
>
> If JEP 159 changes the returned value of ___FieldOffset() from an offset
> to a cookie, what code will break which assumes it is an offset?
>
> The value returned from Unsafe.___FieldOffset seems to be used as a
> cookie.  This cookie can be an index into an array of field offsets.  JEP
> 159 will then have to fix up the array of field offsets for the affected
> classes.  If a field is removed or altered in size, then the existing entry
> in the array should be changed to an error flag (i.e. -1).  In the case of
> adding or altering a field, then a new entry should be added to the array.
> This will prevent corruptions since the Unsafe operations will check the
> entry for the error flag.
>
> The engineer will have to be aware that if they change the size of the
> field from a long to an int, then they have to change the
> AtomicLongFieldUpdater to an AtomicIntegerFieldUpdater.  Currently, the
> compiler doesn't flag a problem if an Atomic__FieldUpdater specifies a
> non-existent field or a field of the wrong type or non-volatile.  These
> checks are left for runtime.  Maybe the compiler should make this check as
> well.
>
> The code that deals with dead, rarely used and oversized fields can't
> change the fields that were used by Unsafe.___FieldOffsets.  If a field is
> changed and then Unsafe.___FieldOffset is called on that field, then those
> fields will have to be reverted.
>
> Is there a better solution?
> --
> Nathan Reynolds<http://psr.us.oracle.com/wiki/index.php/User:Nathan_Reynolds>| Architect | 602.333.9091
> Oracle PSR Engineering <http://psr.us.oracle.com/> | Server Technology
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing listConcurrency-interest at cs.oswego.eduhttp://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing listConcurrency-interest at cs.oswego.eduhttp://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>
>


-- 
*Viktor Klang*
*Director of Engineering*
Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/>

Twitter: @viktorklang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20130617/87a840cc/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list