Useless test instruction
I got the bellow 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 I miss something?
If it is where the best place for reporting?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
add a comment |
I got the bellow 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 I miss something?
If it is where the best place for reporting?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
3 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I got the bellow 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 I miss something?
If it is where the best place for reporting?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
I got the bellow 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 I miss something?
If it is where the best place for reporting?
Thanks!
java assembly jvm jit
java assembly jvm jit
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
edited 3 hours ago
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
asked 3 hours ago
QIvan
735
735
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
3 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
3 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
2
2
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
3 hours ago
This instruction does indeed seem useless.
– fuz
3 hours ago
2
2
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
2 hours ago
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
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.
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
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.
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
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.
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
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.
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
edited 2 hours ago
kr3v
31
31
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
answered 2 hours ago
Aleksey Shipilev
13.6k23567
13.6k23567
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
3 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago