简体   繁体   English

静态块中的初始化 final 和 not final 静态字段

[英]Initialization final and not final static fields in static block

Here I found the following code that shows the difference in perfomance for MethodHandles and Reflection:在这里,我发现以下代码显示了 MethodHandles 和 Reflection 的性能差异:

@Warmup(iterations = 5, time = 1, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
@Measurement(iterations = 5, time = 1, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
@Fork(3)
@BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
@State(Scope.Thread)
public class MHOpto {

    private int value = 42;

    private static final Field static_reflective;
    private static final MethodHandle static_unreflect;
    private static final MethodHandle static_mh;

    private static Field reflective;
    private static MethodHandle unreflect;
    private static MethodHandle mh;

    // We would normally use @Setup, but we need to initialize "static final" fields here...
    static {
        try {
            reflective = MHOpto.class.getDeclaredField("value");
            unreflect = MethodHandles.lookup().unreflectGetter(reflective);
            mh = MethodHandles.lookup().findGetter(MHOpto.class, "value", int.class);
            static_reflective = reflective;
            static_unreflect = unreflect; //LINE X!!!
            static_mh = mh;
        } catch (IllegalAccessException | NoSuchFieldException e) {
            throw new IllegalStateException(e);
        }
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int plain() {
        return value;
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int dynamic_reflect() throws InvocationTargetException, IllegalAccessException {
        return (int) reflective.get(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int dynamic_unreflect_invoke() throws Throwable {
        return (int) unreflect.invoke(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int dynamic_unreflect_invokeExact() throws Throwable {
        return (int) unreflect.invokeExact(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int dynamic_mh_invoke() throws Throwable {
        return (int) mh.invoke(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int dynamic_mh_invokeExact() throws Throwable {
        return (int) mh.invokeExact(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int static_reflect() throws InvocationTargetException, IllegalAccessException {
        return (int) static_reflective.get(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int static_unreflect_invoke() throws Throwable {
        return (int) static_unreflect.invoke(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int static_unreflect_invokeExact() throws Throwable {
        return (int) static_unreflect.invokeExact(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int static_mh_invoke() throws Throwable {
        return (int) static_mh.invoke(this);
    }

    @Benchmark
    public int static_mh_invokeExact() throws Throwable {
        return (int) static_mh.invokeExact(this);
    }

}

And these are the results:这些是结果:

Benchmark                             Mode  Cnt  Score   Error  Units
MHOpto.dynamic_mh_invoke              avgt   25  4.393 ± 0.003  ns/op
MHOpto.dynamic_mh_invokeExact         avgt   25  4.394 ± 0.007  ns/op
MHOpto.dynamic_reflect                avgt   25  5.230 ± 0.020  ns/op
MHOpto.dynamic_unreflect_invoke       avgt   25  4.404 ± 0.023  ns/op
MHOpto.dynamic_unreflect_invokeExact  avgt   25  4.397 ± 0.014  ns/op
MHOpto.plain                          avgt   25  1.858 ± 0.002  ns/op
MHOpto.static_mh_invoke               avgt   25  1.862 ± 0.015  ns/op
MHOpto.static_mh_invokeExact          avgt   25  1.859 ± 0.002  ns/op
MHOpto.static_reflect                 avgt   25  4.274 ± 0.011  ns/op
MHOpto.static_unreflect_invoke        avgt   25  1.859 ± 0.002  ns/op
MHOpto.static_unreflect_invokeExact   avgt   25  1.858 ± 0.002  ns/op

What I don't understand is this line of code:我不明白的是这行代码:

static_unreflect = unreflect;

Is static_unreflect (final) not equal to unreflect (not final)? static_unreflect (final) 不等于unreflect (not final) 吗? Then why do they show different results in perfomance?那么为什么它们在性能上表现出不同的结果呢? Could anyone explain?谁能解释一下?

Only the static final variant of the MethodHandle is seen as a constant by the JIT, see eg ciField : JIT 仅将 MethodHandle 的static final变体视为常量,例如ciField

// Is this field a constant?
//
// Clarification: A field is considered constant if:
//   1. The field is both static and final
//   2. The field is not one of the special static/final
//      non-constant fields.  These are java.lang.System.in
//      and java.lang.System.out.  Abomination.
//
// A field is also considered constant if
// - it is marked @Stable and is non-null (or non-zero, if a primitive) or
// - it is trusted or
// - it is the target field of a CallSite object.
//
// See ciField::initialize_from() for more details.
//
// A user should also check the field value (constant_value().is_valid()), since
// constant fields of non-initialized classes don't have values yet.
bool is_constant() const { return _is_constant; }

And only calls through MethodHandles that are constant are inlined, see CallGenerator::for_method_handle_inline Where it does several checks to see that the receiver is constant like:并且只有通过 MethodHandles 的调用是内联的,请参阅CallGenerator::for_method_handle_inline其中它会进行多次检查以查看接收器是否为常量,例如:

Node* receiver = kit.argument(0);
if (receiver->Opcode() == Op_ConP) {
  ...
} else {
  print_inlining_failure(C, callee, jvms->depth() - 1, jvms->bci(),
                         "receiver not constant");
}

This difference makes it so that the call to the static final MethodHandle can be inlined, and is therefore roughly as fast as the plain case.这种差异使得对static final MethodHandle 的调用可以被内联,因此大致与普通情况一样快。

If you print out inlining information you can see this as well.如果您打印出内联信息,您也可以看到这一点。 eg you could add something like:例如,您可以添加如下内容:

@Fork(jvmArgsAppend="-Xlog:inlining*=trace:inlining-%p-static_mh_invokeExact.txt")

To the benchmark methods.到基准方法。

In the static case you will see the call being inlined:在静态情况下,您将看到调用被内联:

 @ 17   org.sample.MyBenchmark::static_mh_invokeExact (8 bytes)   force inline by CompileCommand
   @ 4   java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$MH/0x00000008000f0040::invokeExact_MT (23 bytes)   force inline by annotation
     @ 10   java.lang.invoke.Invokers::checkExactType (17 bytes)   force inline by annotation
       @ 1   java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::type (5 bytes)
     @ 14   java.lang.invoke.Invokers::checkCustomized (23 bytes)   force inline by annotation
       @ 1   java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleImpl::isCompileConstant (2 bytes)
     @ 19   java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$MH/0x00000008000f0440::getInt (34 bytes)   force inline by annotation
       @ 7   java.lang.invoke.DirectMethodHandle::fieldOffset (9 bytes)   force inline by annotation
       @ 12   java.lang.invoke.DirectMethodHandle::checkBase (5 bytes)   force inline by annotation
         @ 1   java.util.Objects::requireNonNull (14 bytes)
           @ 8   java.lang.NullPointerException::<init> (5 bytes)   don't inline Throwable constructors
       @ 30   jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe::getInt (0 bytes)   intrinsic

We're inlining all the way to the Unsafe::getInt call (but the important part is that we see @ 19 java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$MH/0x00000008000f0440::getInt instead of the invokeBasic ).我们一直内联到Unsafe::getInt调用(但重要的部分是我们看到@ 19 java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$MH/0x00000008000f0440::getInt而不是invokeBasic )。

In the dynamic case, you'll at most see:在动态情况下,您最多会看到:

 @ 17   org.sample.MyBenchmark::dynamic_mh_invokeExact (8 bytes)   force inline by CompileCommand
   @ 4   java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$MH/0x00000008000f0040::invokeExact_MT (23 bytes)   force inline by annotation
     @ 10   java.lang.invoke.Invokers::checkExactType (17 bytes)   force inline by annotation
       @ 1   java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::type (5 bytes)
       @ 12   java.lang.invoke.Invokers::newWrongMethodTypeException (36 bytes)   callee is too large
     @ 14   java.lang.invoke.Invokers::checkCustomized (23 bytes)   force inline by annotation
       @ 1   java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleImpl::isCompileConstant (2 bytes)
       @ 19   java.lang.invoke.Invokers::maybeCustomize (28 bytes)   don't inline by annotation
     @ 19   java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle::invokeBasic(L)I (0 bytes)   receiver not constant

Ie in that case there is still an indirect call through the invokeBasic stub , because "receiver not constant".即在这种情况下,仍然存在通过invokeBasic存根的间接调用,因为“接收器不是常量”。

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM