Hi,
thank you:) I have OCA signed and processed.
I have changed Integer.reverseBytes, and added two small checks to
BitTwiddle tests for Integer and Long,
patch is attached.
Jaroslav
2016-04-29 14:33 GMT+02:00 Claes Redestad <claes.redes...@oracle.com>:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 2016-04-29 13:36, Jaroslav Kameník wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I have a small patch to Integer and Long classes, which is speeding up bit
>> reversion significantly.
>>
>> Last two/three steps of bit reversion are doing byte reversion, so there
>> is
>> possibility to use
>> intrinsified method reverseBytes. Java implementation of reverseBytes is
>> similar to those
>> steps, so it should give similar performance when intrinsics are not
>> available. Here I have
>> result of few performance tests (thank for hints, Aleksej:) :
>>
>>
>> old code:
>>
>> # VM options: -server
>> ReverseInt.reverse 1 avgt 5 8,766 ± 0,214 ns/op
>> ReverseLong.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,992 ± 0,165 ns/op
>>
>> # VM options: -client
>> ReverseInt.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,168 ± 0,268 ns/op
>> ReverseLong.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,988 ± 0,123 ns/op
>>
>>
>> patched:
>>
>> # VM options: -server
>> ReverseInt.reverse 1 avgt 5 6,411 ± 0,046 ns/op
>> ReverseLong.reverse 1 avgt 5 6,299 ± 0,158 ns/op
>>
>> # VM options: -client
>> ReverseInt.reverse 1 avgt 5 6,430 ± 0,022 ns/op
>> ReverseLong.reverse 1 avgt 5 6,301 ± 0,097 ns/op
>>
>>
>> patched, intrinsics disabled:
>>
>> # VM options: -server -XX:DisableIntrinsic=_reverseBytes_i,_reverseBytes_l
>> ReverseInt.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,597 ± 0,206 ns/op
>> ReverseLong.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,966 ± 0,151 ns/op
>>
>> # VM options: -client -XX:DisableIntrinsic=_reverseBytes_i,_reverseBytes_l
>> ReverseInt.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,609 ± 0,069 ns/op
>> ReverseLong.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,968 ± 0,075 ns/op
>>
>>
>>
>> You can see, there is little slowdown in integer case with intrinsics
>> disabled.
>> It seems to be caused by different 'shape' of byte reverting code in
>> Integer.reverse and Integer.reverseByte. I tried to replace reverseByte
>> code
>> with piece of reverse method, and it is as fast as not patched case:
>>
>>
>> ReverseInt.reverse 1 avgt 5 9,184 ± 0,255 ns/op
>>
>>
>> Diffs from jdk9:
>>
>> Integer.java:
>>
>> @@ -1779,9 +1805,8 @@
>> i = (i & 0x55555555) << 1 | (i >>> 1) & 0x55555555;
>> i = (i & 0x33333333) << 2 | (i >>> 2) & 0x33333333;
>> i = (i & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (i >>> 4) & 0x0f0f0f0f;
>> - i = (i << 24) | ((i & 0xff00) << 8) |
>> - ((i >>> 8) & 0xff00) | (i >>> 24);
>> - return i;
>> +
>> + return reverseBytes(i);
>>
>> Long.java:
>>
>> @@ -1940,10 +1997,8 @@
>> i = (i & 0x5555555555555555L) << 1 | (i >>> 1) &
>> 0x5555555555555555L;
>> i = (i & 0x3333333333333333L) << 2 | (i >>> 2) &
>> 0x3333333333333333L;
>> i = (i & 0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0fL) << 4 | (i >>> 4) &
>> 0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0fL;
>> - i = (i & 0x00ff00ff00ff00ffL) << 8 | (i >>> 8) &
>> 0x00ff00ff00ff00ffL;
>> - i = (i << 48) | ((i & 0xffff0000L) << 16) |
>> - ((i >>> 16) & 0xffff0000L) | (i >>> 48);
>> - return i;
>> +
>> + return reverseBytes(i);
>>
>
> reduces code duplication, improves performance... what's the catch!? :-)
>
> Updating Integer.reverseByte to have the same 'shape' as in
> Integer.reverseByte seems reasonable in this case.
>
> I can sponsor this if you've signed the OCA etc.
>
> Thanks!
>
> /Claes
>
--- old/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Integer.java 2016-04-29 17:52:22.407574334 +0200
+++ new/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Integer.java 2016-04-29 17:52:22.295575132 +0200
@@ -1790,9 +1790,8 @@
i = (i & 0x55555555) << 1 | (i >>> 1) & 0x55555555;
i = (i & 0x33333333) << 2 | (i >>> 2) & 0x33333333;
i = (i & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (i >>> 4) & 0x0f0f0f0f;
- i = (i << 24) | ((i & 0xff00) << 8) |
- ((i >>> 8) & 0xff00) | (i >>> 24);
- return i;
+
+ return reverseBytes(i);
}
/**
@@ -1820,10 +1819,10 @@
*/
@HotSpotIntrinsicCandidate
public static int reverseBytes(int i) {
- return ((i >>> 24) ) |
- ((i >> 8) & 0xFF00) |
- ((i << 8) & 0xFF0000) |
- ((i << 24));
+ return (i << 24) |
+ ((i & 0xff00) << 8) |
+ ((i >>> 8) & 0xff00) |
+ (i >>> 24);
}
/**
--- old/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Long.java 2016-04-29 17:52:22.667572486 +0200
+++ new/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Long.java 2016-04-29 17:52:22.555573282 +0200
@@ -1952,10 +1952,8 @@
i = (i & 0x5555555555555555L) << 1 | (i >>> 1) & 0x5555555555555555L;
i = (i & 0x3333333333333333L) << 2 | (i >>> 2) & 0x3333333333333333L;
i = (i & 0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0fL) << 4 | (i >>> 4) & 0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0fL;
- i = (i & 0x00ff00ff00ff00ffL) << 8 | (i >>> 8) & 0x00ff00ff00ff00ffL;
- i = (i << 48) | ((i & 0xffff0000L) << 16) |
- ((i >>> 16) & 0xffff0000L) | (i >>> 48);
- return i;
+
+ return reverseBytes(i);
}
/**
--- old/test/java/lang/Integer/BitTwiddle.java 2016-04-29 17:52:22.931570609 +0200
+++ new/test/java/lang/Integer/BitTwiddle.java 2016-04-29 17:52:22.815571433 +0200
@@ -135,5 +135,9 @@
if (bitCount(x) != bitCount(reverseBytes(x)))
throw new RuntimeException("z: " + toHexString(x));
}
+
+ if(reverse(0b0001_0010_0011_0100_0101_0110_0111_1001) !=
+ 0b1001_1110_0110_1010_0010_1100_0100_1000)
+ throw new RuntimeException("reverse");
}
}
--- old/test/java/lang/Long/BitTwiddle.java 2016-04-29 17:52:23.195568732 +0200
+++ new/test/java/lang/Long/BitTwiddle.java 2016-04-29 17:52:23.083569529 +0200
@@ -135,5 +135,9 @@
if (bitCount(x) != bitCount(reverseBytes(x)))
throw new RuntimeException("z: " + toHexString(x));
}
+
+ if(reverse(0b0001_1111_0010_1110_0011_1101_0100_1100_0101_1011_0110_1010_1000_1001_1000_0111L) !=
+ 0b1110_0001_1001_0001_0101_0110_1101_1010_0011_0010_1011_1100_0111_0100_1111_1000L)
+ throw new RuntimeException("reverse");
}
}
