Also, fwiw...after these two chunks in LogCompilation output, I see nothing else inlined into fib_ruby, including a monomorphic call path through PlusCallSite ending at RubyFixnum#op_plus (the integer + operation). That would also affect performance.
I also do not see any indication *why* nothing inlines past this point. Usually it would say "too big" or something. I do see MinusCallSite inline earlier. - Charlie On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <head...@headius.com> wrote: > The following chunk should be the invokedynamic call to fib, via a > GWT, an arg permuter, and perhaps one convert: > > @ 77 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (0 bytes) > @ 77 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (44 bytes) > @ 8 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (0 bytes) > @ 8 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (7 bytes) > @ 3 org.jruby.runtime.invokedynamic.InvokeDynamicSupport::test > (20 bytes) > @ 5 org.jruby.RubyBasicObject::getMetaClass (5 bytes) > @ 8 org.jruby.RubyModule::getCacheToken (5 bytes) > @ 23 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (0 bytes) > @ 23 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (67 bytes) > @ 1 java.lang.Boolean::valueOf (14 bytes) > @ 10 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (0 bytes) > @ 10 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (24 bytes) > @ 11 java.lang.Boolean::booleanValue (5 bytes) > @ 20 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleImpl::selectAlternative (10 bytes) > @ 63 java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact (0 bytes) > @ 37 sun.invoke.util.ValueConversions::identity (2 bytes) > > This seems to only be the test logic; the actual fib invocation > doesn't appear to show up in the inlining graph at all. Am I right? > > I see two of these in the LogCompilation output and nothing else > around them. I'd expect to see them do the invocation of fib_ruby > somewhere in there. It's like the "success" branch of GWT is not even > being considered for inlining. > > - Charlie > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Tom Rodriguez <tom.rodrig...@oracle.com> > wrote: >> If there were to be a recursive inline in there, where would it occur? I >> can't tell from the names where in that inline tree where the recursive call >> occurs. >> >> tom >> >> On May 23, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >> >>> fib_ruby LogCompilation inlining graph, showing that fib_ruby is not >>> inlined: https://gist.github.com/f2b665ad3c97ba622ebf >>> >>> Can anyone suggest other flags I can try to adjust to get things to >>> inline better? >>> >>> FWIW, the handle chain in question that's not inlining is pretty simple: >>> >>> * DMH pointing back at fib_ruby >>> * permute args >>> * GWT >>> >>> - Charlie >>> >>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter >>> <head...@headius.com> wrote: >>>> I'm working up a set of files that show JRuby compilation output, but >>>> I noticed a couple things that might be interesting right now. >>>> >>>> First off, fairly early in the assembly output for fib, I see this: >>>> >>>> 0x02876d1f: call 0x0282d0e0 ; OopMap{[96]=Oop [100]=Oop >>>> [28]=Oop [40]=Oop [48]=Oop off=644} >>>> ;*invokespecial invokeExact >>>> ; - >>>> java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact@63 >>>> ; - >>>> java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact@23 >>>> ; - >>>> bench.bench_fib_recursive::method__0$RUBY$fib_ruby@51 (line 7) >>>> ; {optimized virtual_call} >>>> >>>> For fib, the only invokedynamic is the recursive call to fib, so that >>>> would indicate that fib_ruby is not inlining into itself at all here. >>>> And I can't see it inlining into itself anywhere in the assembly >>>> output. >>>> >>>> Later in the same output: >>>> >>>> 0x0287703f: call 0x0282dba0 ; OopMap{ebp=Oop off=1444} >>>> ;*checkcast >>>> ; - >>>> java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact@40 >>>> ; - >>>> bench.bench_fib_recursive::method__0$RUBY$fib_ruby@82 (line 7) >>>> ; {runtime_call} >>>> 0x02877044: call 0x0105a9d0 ;*checkcast >>>> ; - >>>> java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeExact@40 >>>> ; - >>>> bench.bench_fib_recursive::method__0$RUBY$fib_ruby@82 (line 7) >>>> ; {runtime_call} >>>> >>>> These appear repeatedly near the invokedynamic invocation above. If >>>> I'm reading this right, neither the recursive call nor logic involved >>>> in that particular handle is inlining. Am I right? >>>> >>>> Here's the complete assembly dump (i386) for the fib_ruby method: >>>> https://gist.github.com/987640 >>>> >>>> In other news, MaxInlineSize=150 with InlineSmallCode=3000 does not >>>> appear to improve performance. I also tried bumping up >>>> MaxRecursiveInlineLevel and MaxInlineLevel with no effect. >>>> >>>> - Charlie >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mlvm-dev mailing list >>> mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mlvm-dev mailing list >> mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
