8370251: C2: Inlining checks for method handle intrinsics are too strict

[iwanowww]

C2 performs access checks during inlining attempts through method handle
intrinsic calls. But there are no such checks happening at runtime when
executing the calls. (Access checks are performed when corresponding method
handle is resolved.) So, inlining may fail due to access checks failure while
the call always succeeds at runtime.

The fix is to skip access checks when inlining through method handle intrinsics.

Testing: hs-tier1 - hs-tier4

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8370251: C2: Inlining checks for method handle intrinsics are too strict (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Vladimir Kozlov (@vnkozlov - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27908/head:pull/27908
$ git checkout pull/27908

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/27908
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27908/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 27908

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 27908

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27908.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back vlivanov! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@iwanowww This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8370251: C2: Inlining checks for method handle intrinsics are too strict

Reviewed-by: kvn

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 153 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 97e5ac6: 8370514: Problemlist nio/channels/AsyncCloseAndInterrupt until JDK-8368290 is resolved
• 2ee3439: 8368975: Windows ProcessImpl.java has dead code
• 13adcd9: 8274082: Wrong test name in jtreg run tag for java/awt/print/PrinterJob/SwingUIText.java
• ... and 150 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/c9cbd31f8575a25c4decd68dc645378c5ba2bad0...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[openjdk]

@iwanowww The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot-compiler

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 /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (10fc3272)

[vnkozlov]

Can you explain why only here you pass check_access and expect it is true in all other places?

[liach]

Similar question, should we add an assert for check_access before the resolve_invoke in Compile::optimize_inlining?

[iwanowww]

Can you explain why only here you pass check_access and expect it is true in all other places?

@vnkozlov That's the only case which was overlooked in JDK-8062280. All other cases aren't exercised for MH intrinsic methods and the asserts are there to verify that. If they start to fail, it'll signal that there may be a missing optimization opportunity.

should we add an assert for check_access before the resolve_invoke in Compile::optimize_inlining?

@liach good question, it makes sense to separately take a closer look at this particular case. My first impression is check_access should be passed into resolve_invoke rather than asserting check_access == true before resolve_invoke.

[vnkozlov]

@iwanowww thank you for answering my question.