Useless test instruction?
I got the below assembly list as result for JIT compilation for my java program.
mov 0x14(%rsp),%r10d
inc %r10d
mov 0x1c(%rsp),%r8d
inc %r8d
test %eax,(%r11) ; <--- this instruction
mov (%rsp),%r9
mov 0x40(%rsp),%r14d
mov 0x18(%rsp),%r11d
mov %ebp,%r13d
mov 0x8(%rsp),%rbx
mov 0x20(%rsp),%rbp
mov 0x10(%rsp),%ecx
mov 0x28(%rsp),%rax
movzbl 0x18(%r9),%edi
movslq %r8d,%rsi
cmp 0x30(%rsp),%rsi
jge 0x00007fd3d27c4f17
My understanding the test instruction is useless here because the main idea of the test is
The flags SF, ZF, PF are modified while the result of the AND is discarded.
and here we don't use these result flags.
Is it a bug in JIT or do I miss something?
If it is, where the best place for reporting it?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit jvm-hotspot
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
|
show 4 more comments
I got the below assembly list as result for JIT compilation for my java program.
mov 0x14(%rsp),%r10d
inc %r10d
mov 0x1c(%rsp),%r8d
inc %r8d
test %eax,(%r11) ; <--- this instruction
mov (%rsp),%r9
mov 0x40(%rsp),%r14d
mov 0x18(%rsp),%r11d
mov %ebp,%r13d
mov 0x8(%rsp),%rbx
mov 0x20(%rsp),%rbp
mov 0x10(%rsp),%ecx
mov 0x28(%rsp),%rax
movzbl 0x18(%r9),%edi
movslq %r8d,%rsi
cmp 0x30(%rsp),%rsi
jge 0x00007fd3d27c4f17
My understanding the test instruction is useless here because the main idea of the test is
The flags SF, ZF, PF are modified while the result of the AND is discarded.
and here we don't use these result flags.
Is it a bug in JIT or do I miss something?
If it is, where the best place for reporting it?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit jvm-hotspot
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
yesterday
6
FWIW, it implicitly checks that r11 contains a valid pointer, and raises an exception if not. Is that intentional? I don't know, out of context.
– another-dave
yesterday
2
Now that we know the answer, if the JVM had more time to analyze the surrounding code it could have usedmov (%r11), %r9dbecauser9is about to be written by another instruction. MOV is the same number of code bytes, but it's a pure load without an ALU uop. This is a minor optimization because ALU port pressure is almost certainly not a problem here, and modern x86 CPUs keep the load micro-fused into a single uop with the ALU instruction through most of the pipeline so it doesn't hurt front-end throughput.
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
But it does take an extra scheduler entry until the load is ready so the ALU uop can execute, and 2 ROB entries on Sandybridge and earlier Intel. IvyBridge & later have fused-domain ROB, but SnB has an unfused-domain ReOrder Buffer. Source: Mentioned in a row in table 3 in this paper: publications.vpw.me/publications/2015_uop_flow_simulation.pdf. See Understanding the impact of lfence on a loop with two long dependency chains, for increasing lengths
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
@PeterCordes That's pretty counterintuitive and strange. I always thought the microfused uops will keep fused until dispatching to execution port. I double check Agner Fog's manual, they also say the uop will keep fused to RS. They even say in page 92 that saving an ROB entry is an advantage of micro fusion since PM, which is quite reasonable. Are you sure ROB is an unfused-domain until IvyBridge?
– liliscent
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
I got the below assembly list as result for JIT compilation for my java program.
mov 0x14(%rsp),%r10d
inc %r10d
mov 0x1c(%rsp),%r8d
inc %r8d
test %eax,(%r11) ; <--- this instruction
mov (%rsp),%r9
mov 0x40(%rsp),%r14d
mov 0x18(%rsp),%r11d
mov %ebp,%r13d
mov 0x8(%rsp),%rbx
mov 0x20(%rsp),%rbp
mov 0x10(%rsp),%ecx
mov 0x28(%rsp),%rax
movzbl 0x18(%r9),%edi
movslq %r8d,%rsi
cmp 0x30(%rsp),%rsi
jge 0x00007fd3d27c4f17
My understanding the test instruction is useless here because the main idea of the test is
The flags SF, ZF, PF are modified while the result of the AND is discarded.
and here we don't use these result flags.
Is it a bug in JIT or do I miss something?
If it is, where the best place for reporting it?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit jvm-hotspot
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
I got the below assembly list as result for JIT compilation for my java program.
mov 0x14(%rsp),%r10d
inc %r10d
mov 0x1c(%rsp),%r8d
inc %r8d
test %eax,(%r11) ; <--- this instruction
mov (%rsp),%r9
mov 0x40(%rsp),%r14d
mov 0x18(%rsp),%r11d
mov %ebp,%r13d
mov 0x8(%rsp),%rbx
mov 0x20(%rsp),%rbp
mov 0x10(%rsp),%ecx
mov 0x28(%rsp),%rax
movzbl 0x18(%r9),%edi
movslq %r8d,%rsi
cmp 0x30(%rsp),%rsi
jge 0x00007fd3d27c4f17
My understanding the test instruction is useless here because the main idea of the test is
The flags SF, ZF, PF are modified while the result of the AND is discarded.
and here we don't use these result flags.
Is it a bug in JIT or do I miss something?
If it is, where the best place for reporting it?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit jvm-hotspot
java assembly jvm jit jvm-hotspot
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
edited 20 hours ago
Henrik Schumacher
1433
1433
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
asked yesterday
QIvan
1586
1586
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
yesterday
6
FWIW, it implicitly checks that r11 contains a valid pointer, and raises an exception if not. Is that intentional? I don't know, out of context.
– another-dave
yesterday
2
Now that we know the answer, if the JVM had more time to analyze the surrounding code it could have usedmov (%r11), %r9dbecauser9is about to be written by another instruction. MOV is the same number of code bytes, but it's a pure load without an ALU uop. This is a minor optimization because ALU port pressure is almost certainly not a problem here, and modern x86 CPUs keep the load micro-fused into a single uop with the ALU instruction through most of the pipeline so it doesn't hurt front-end throughput.
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
But it does take an extra scheduler entry until the load is ready so the ALU uop can execute, and 2 ROB entries on Sandybridge and earlier Intel. IvyBridge & later have fused-domain ROB, but SnB has an unfused-domain ReOrder Buffer. Source: Mentioned in a row in table 3 in this paper: publications.vpw.me/publications/2015_uop_flow_simulation.pdf. See Understanding the impact of lfence on a loop with two long dependency chains, for increasing lengths
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
@PeterCordes That's pretty counterintuitive and strange. I always thought the microfused uops will keep fused until dispatching to execution port. I double check Agner Fog's manual, they also say the uop will keep fused to RS. They even say in page 92 that saving an ROB entry is an advantage of micro fusion since PM, which is quite reasonable. Are you sure ROB is an unfused-domain until IvyBridge?
– liliscent
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
yesterday
6
FWIW, it implicitly checks that r11 contains a valid pointer, and raises an exception if not. Is that intentional? I don't know, out of context.
– another-dave
yesterday
2
Now that we know the answer, if the JVM had more time to analyze the surrounding code it could have usedmov (%r11), %r9dbecauser9is about to be written by another instruction. MOV is the same number of code bytes, but it's a pure load without an ALU uop. This is a minor optimization because ALU port pressure is almost certainly not a problem here, and modern x86 CPUs keep the load micro-fused into a single uop with the ALU instruction through most of the pipeline so it doesn't hurt front-end throughput.
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
But it does take an extra scheduler entry until the load is ready so the ALU uop can execute, and 2 ROB entries on Sandybridge and earlier Intel. IvyBridge & later have fused-domain ROB, but SnB has an unfused-domain ReOrder Buffer. Source: Mentioned in a row in table 3 in this paper: publications.vpw.me/publications/2015_uop_flow_simulation.pdf. See Understanding the impact of lfence on a loop with two long dependency chains, for increasing lengths
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
@PeterCordes That's pretty counterintuitive and strange. I always thought the microfused uops will keep fused until dispatching to execution port. I double check Agner Fog's manual, they also say the uop will keep fused to RS. They even say in page 92 that saving an ROB entry is an advantage of micro fusion since PM, which is quite reasonable. Are you sure ROB is an unfused-domain until IvyBridge?
– liliscent
yesterday
2
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
yesterday
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
yesterday
6
6
FWIW, it implicitly checks that r11 contains a valid pointer, and raises an exception if not. Is that intentional? I don't know, out of context.
– another-dave
yesterday
FWIW, it implicitly checks that r11 contains a valid pointer, and raises an exception if not. Is that intentional? I don't know, out of context.
– another-dave
yesterday
2
2
Now that we know the answer, if the JVM had more time to analyze the surrounding code it could have used
mov (%r11), %r9d because r9 is about to be written by another instruction. MOV is the same number of code bytes, but it's a pure load without an ALU uop. This is a minor optimization because ALU port pressure is almost certainly not a problem here, and modern x86 CPUs keep the load micro-fused into a single uop with the ALU instruction through most of the pipeline so it doesn't hurt front-end throughput.– Peter Cordes
yesterday
Now that we know the answer, if the JVM had more time to analyze the surrounding code it could have used
mov (%r11), %r9d because r9 is about to be written by another instruction. MOV is the same number of code bytes, but it's a pure load without an ALU uop. This is a minor optimization because ALU port pressure is almost certainly not a problem here, and modern x86 CPUs keep the load micro-fused into a single uop with the ALU instruction through most of the pipeline so it doesn't hurt front-end throughput.– Peter Cordes
yesterday
But it does take an extra scheduler entry until the load is ready so the ALU uop can execute, and 2 ROB entries on Sandybridge and earlier Intel. IvyBridge & later have fused-domain ROB, but SnB has an unfused-domain ReOrder Buffer. Source: Mentioned in a row in table 3 in this paper: publications.vpw.me/publications/2015_uop_flow_simulation.pdf. See Understanding the impact of lfence on a loop with two long dependency chains, for increasing lengths
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
But it does take an extra scheduler entry until the load is ready so the ALU uop can execute, and 2 ROB entries on Sandybridge and earlier Intel. IvyBridge & later have fused-domain ROB, but SnB has an unfused-domain ReOrder Buffer. Source: Mentioned in a row in table 3 in this paper: publications.vpw.me/publications/2015_uop_flow_simulation.pdf. See Understanding the impact of lfence on a loop with two long dependency chains, for increasing lengths
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
@PeterCordes That's pretty counterintuitive and strange. I always thought the microfused uops will keep fused until dispatching to execution port. I double check Agner Fog's manual, they also say the uop will keep fused to RS. They even say in page 92 that saving an ROB entry is an advantage of micro fusion since PM, which is quite reasonable. Are you sure ROB is an unfused-domain until IvyBridge?
– liliscent
yesterday
@PeterCordes That's pretty counterintuitive and strange. I always thought the microfused uops will keep fused until dispatching to execution port. I double check Agner Fog's manual, they also say the uop will keep fused to RS. They even say in page 92 that saving an ROB entry is an advantage of micro fusion since PM, which is quite reasonable. Are you sure ROB is an unfused-domain until IvyBridge?
– liliscent
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
That must be the thread-local handshake poll.
Look where %r11 is read from. If it is read from some offset off the %r15 (thread-local storage), that's the guy. See the example here:
0.31% ↗ ...70: movzbl 0x94(%r9),%r10d
0.19% │ ...78: mov 0x108(%r15),%r11 ; read the thread-local page addr
25.62% │ ...7f: add $0x1,%rbp
35.10% │ ...83: test %eax,(%r11) ; thread-local handshake poll
34.91% │ ...86: test %r10d,%r10d
╰ ...89: je ...70
It is not useless, it would cause SEGV once the guard page is marked non-readable, and that would transfer control to JVM's SEGV handler. This is part of JVM's mechanics to safepoint Java threads, e.g. for GC.
UPD: Hopefully, more details here.
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54054782%2fuseless-test-instruction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
That must be the thread-local handshake poll.
Look where %r11 is read from. If it is read from some offset off the %r15 (thread-local storage), that's the guy. See the example here:
0.31% ↗ ...70: movzbl 0x94(%r9),%r10d
0.19% │ ...78: mov 0x108(%r15),%r11 ; read the thread-local page addr
25.62% │ ...7f: add $0x1,%rbp
35.10% │ ...83: test %eax,(%r11) ; thread-local handshake poll
34.91% │ ...86: test %r10d,%r10d
╰ ...89: je ...70
It is not useless, it would cause SEGV once the guard page is marked non-readable, and that would transfer control to JVM's SEGV handler. This is part of JVM's mechanics to safepoint Java threads, e.g. for GC.
UPD: Hopefully, more details here.
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
add a comment |
That must be the thread-local handshake poll.
Look where %r11 is read from. If it is read from some offset off the %r15 (thread-local storage), that's the guy. See the example here:
0.31% ↗ ...70: movzbl 0x94(%r9),%r10d
0.19% │ ...78: mov 0x108(%r15),%r11 ; read the thread-local page addr
25.62% │ ...7f: add $0x1,%rbp
35.10% │ ...83: test %eax,(%r11) ; thread-local handshake poll
34.91% │ ...86: test %r10d,%r10d
╰ ...89: je ...70
It is not useless, it would cause SEGV once the guard page is marked non-readable, and that would transfer control to JVM's SEGV handler. This is part of JVM's mechanics to safepoint Java threads, e.g. for GC.
UPD: Hopefully, more details here.
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
add a comment |
That must be the thread-local handshake poll.
Look where %r11 is read from. If it is read from some offset off the %r15 (thread-local storage), that's the guy. See the example here:
0.31% ↗ ...70: movzbl 0x94(%r9),%r10d
0.19% │ ...78: mov 0x108(%r15),%r11 ; read the thread-local page addr
25.62% │ ...7f: add $0x1,%rbp
35.10% │ ...83: test %eax,(%r11) ; thread-local handshake poll
34.91% │ ...86: test %r10d,%r10d
╰ ...89: je ...70
It is not useless, it would cause SEGV once the guard page is marked non-readable, and that would transfer control to JVM's SEGV handler. This is part of JVM's mechanics to safepoint Java threads, e.g. for GC.
UPD: Hopefully, more details here.
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
That must be the thread-local handshake poll.
Look where %r11 is read from. If it is read from some offset off the %r15 (thread-local storage), that's the guy. See the example here:
0.31% ↗ ...70: movzbl 0x94(%r9),%r10d
0.19% │ ...78: mov 0x108(%r15),%r11 ; read the thread-local page addr
25.62% │ ...7f: add $0x1,%rbp
35.10% │ ...83: test %eax,(%r11) ; thread-local handshake poll
34.91% │ ...86: test %r10d,%r10d
╰ ...89: je ...70
It is not useless, it would cause SEGV once the guard page is marked non-readable, and that would transfer control to JVM's SEGV handler. This is part of JVM's mechanics to safepoint Java threads, e.g. for GC.
UPD: Hopefully, more details here.
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
answered yesterday
Aleksey Shipilev
13.8k23769
13.8k23769
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54054782%2fuseless-test-instruction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
yesterday
6
FWIW, it implicitly checks that r11 contains a valid pointer, and raises an exception if not. Is that intentional? I don't know, out of context.
– another-dave
yesterday
2
Now that we know the answer, if the JVM had more time to analyze the surrounding code it could have used
mov (%r11), %r9dbecauser9is about to be written by another instruction. MOV is the same number of code bytes, but it's a pure load without an ALU uop. This is a minor optimization because ALU port pressure is almost certainly not a problem here, and modern x86 CPUs keep the load micro-fused into a single uop with the ALU instruction through most of the pipeline so it doesn't hurt front-end throughput.– Peter Cordes
yesterday
But it does take an extra scheduler entry until the load is ready so the ALU uop can execute, and 2 ROB entries on Sandybridge and earlier Intel. IvyBridge & later have fused-domain ROB, but SnB has an unfused-domain ReOrder Buffer. Source: Mentioned in a row in table 3 in this paper: publications.vpw.me/publications/2015_uop_flow_simulation.pdf. See Understanding the impact of lfence on a loop with two long dependency chains, for increasing lengths
– Peter Cordes
yesterday
@PeterCordes That's pretty counterintuitive and strange. I always thought the microfused uops will keep fused until dispatching to execution port. I double check Agner Fog's manual, they also say the uop will keep fused to RS. They even say in page 92 that saving an ROB entry is an advantage of micro fusion since PM, which is quite reasonable. Are you sure ROB is an unfused-domain until IvyBridge?
– liliscent
yesterday