8365205: C2: Optimize popcount value computation using knownbits #27075

jatin-bhateja · 2025-09-03T16:10:43Z

This patch optimizes PopCount value transforms using KnownBits information.
Following are the results of the micro-benchmark included with the patch

System: 13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-1315U

Baseline:
Benchmark                                      Mode  Cnt       Score   Error  Units
PopCountValueTransform.LogicFoldingKerenLong  thrpt    2  215460.670          ops/s
PopCountValueTransform.LogicFoldingKerenlInt  thrpt    2  294014.826          ops/s

Withopt:
Benchmark                                      Mode  Cnt       Score   Error  Units
PopCountValueTransform.LogicFoldingKerenLong  thrpt    2  389978.082          ops/s
PopCountValueTransform.LogicFoldingKerenlInt  thrpt    2  417261.583          ops/s

Kindly review and share your feedback.

Best Regards,
Jatin

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-8365205: C2: Optimize popcount value computation using knownbits (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

Emanuel Peter (@eme64 - Reviewer)
Hannes Greule (@SirYwell - Committer) Review applies to e206ccc3
Quan Anh Mai (@merykitty - Committer) Review applies to 85b10e88

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27075/head:pull/27075
$ git checkout pull/27075

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/27075
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27075/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 27075

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 27075

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27075.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

jatin-bhateja · 2025-09-03T16:11:32Z

/label add hotspot-compiler-dev

bridgekeeper · 2025-09-03T16:11:40Z

👋 Welcome back jbhateja! 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 · 2025-09-03T16:12:38Z

@jatin-bhateja 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:

8365205: C2: Optimize popcount value computation using knownbits

Reviewed-by: epeter, hgreule, qamai

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 591 new commits pushed to the master branch:

28460ca: 8368897: RISC-V: Cleanup RV_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS & RV_NON_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS
0af959a: 8369560: Slowdebug build without CDS fails
98e1d2f: 8369563: Gtest dll_address_to_function_and_library_name has issues with stripped pdb files
... and 588 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/2a5f149bb8e26277778465fff670591c929842de...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 · 2025-09-03T16:13:08Z

@jatin-bhateja
The hotspot-compiler label was successfully added.

mlbridge · 2025-09-04T05:47:24Z

Webrevs

SirYwell · 2025-09-04T06:26:36Z

The change looks good, but I wonder:

if it makes sense to have some kind of IR tests (i.e., it's folded away when unneeded, when the input is a constant, ...)?
whether the explanation could be simplified: Assuming a correct implementation of the KnownBits canonicalization, we can argue
- _zeroes has the bits set that are known to be always 0. So BitsPer<Type> - popCount(x) gives you an upper limit of how many bits might be 1. And BitsPer<Type> - popCount(_zeroes) is equivalent to popCount(~_zeroes).
- _ones has the bits set that are known to be always 1. Trivially, popCount(_ones) is a valid lower bound.
- The rest repeats how adjust_bits_from_unsigned_bounds works, but that's not specific to the popcount nodes.

jatin-bhateja · 2025-09-09T02:09:53Z

Hi @TobiHartmann , @SirYwell , @eme64 , can you kindly verify the changes in the latest patch?

eme64

Very nice improvement @jatin-bhateja , thanks for working on it :)

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java

eme64 · 2025-09-09T11:44:59Z

test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/lang/PopCountValueTransform.java

+    @Benchmark
+    public int StockKernelInt() {
+        int res = 0;
+        for (int i = lower_bound; i < upper_bound; i++) {
+            int constrained_i = i & 0xFFFF;
+            res += constrained_i;
+        }
+        return res;
+    }
+
+    @Benchmark
+    public int LogicFoldingKerenlInt() {
+        int res = 0;
+        for (int i = lower_bound; i < upper_bound; i++) {
+            int constrained_i = i & 0xFFFF;
+            if (Integer.bitCount(constrained_i) > 16) {
+                throw new AssertionError("Uncommon trap");
+            }
+            res += constrained_i;
+        }
+        return res;
+    }
+
+    @Benchmark
+    public long StockKernelLong() {
+        long res = 0;
+        for (int i = lower_bound; i < upper_bound; i++) {
+            long constrained_i = i & 0xFFFFFFL;
+            res += constrained_i;
+        }
+        return res;
+    }
+
+    @Benchmark
+    public long LogicFoldingKerenLong() {
+        long res = 0;
+        for (int i = lower_bound; i < upper_bound; i++) {
+            long constrained_i = i & 0xFFFFFFL;
+            if (Long.bitCount(constrained_i) > 24) {
+                throw new AssertionError("Uncommon trap");
+            }
+            res += constrained_i;
+        }
+        return res;
+    }


I assume the stock kernels are there to show performance if there is no op, the folding kernels you hope have the same performance. It would be nice to have one where the bitCount does not fold away, just to keep that comparison :)

I see your point, on a second thought, since any benchmarks compare the performance of kernels with and without optimization it's better to do away with the stock variants and only retain folding kernels.

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java

Co-authored-by: Emanuel Peter <emanuel.peter@oracle.com>

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java

eme64 · 2025-09-18T12:55:16Z

@jatin-bhateja I'm going to be out of the office for about 3 weeks, so feel free to ask others for reviews!

openjdk · 2025-09-18T19:41:43Z

@jatin-bhateja The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

core-libs

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.

jatin-bhateja · 2025-09-19T08:19:40Z

Hi @eme64 , @chhagedorn , @SirYwell , let me know if its good to land now.

eme64

As I'm about to board my plane for a 3-week vacation, I'm leaving a last little note for the reviewers.

I think this is a really nice addition, so thanks for doing it @jatin-bhateja 😊 . Though it will only reach its full potential once we implement more "basic" KnownBits optimizations such as JDK-8367341.

Please make sure you test it, and make sure the random values generated with the Generators in test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java make sense. Currently, there is for example a 32 bit range for a 64 bit long value, which is not correct, I think.

By default, my recommendation is to not constrain the Generators ranges, unless there is a really good reason. Generators are already built to produce values close to zero at an over-proportional rate. But by not restricting we may at some point also hit cases that we did not anticipate, and catch bugs that way.

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java

jatin-bhateja · 2025-09-19T09:49:36Z

As I'm about to board my plane for a 3-week vacation, I'm leaving a last little note for the reviewers.

I think this is a really nice addition, so thanks for doing it @jatin-bhateja 😊 . Though it will only reach its full potential once we implement more "basic" KnownBits optimizations such as JDK-8367341.

Correct, currently KnownBits information is constrained as they are generated for limited value ranges, as discussed in
#27075 (comment)

SirYwell · 2025-09-19T11:16:26Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp

+// We use the KnownBits information from the integer types to derive how many one bits
+// we have at least and at most.
+// From the definition of KnownBits, we know:
+//   zeros: Indicates which bits must be 0: ones[i] =1 -> t[i]=0


I'm a bit confused by this, is ones[i] mixed up with zeros[i]? I.e., t[i]=0 if zeros[i]=1

@SirYwell , comment updated.

Links to formal z3 proofs for this:-

#25928 (comment)

https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8365205?focusedId=14807707&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14807707:~:text=C%3A%5CGithub%5Csoftwares%5Cz3%5Cz3%2D4.15.2%2Dx64%2Dwin%5Cbin%5Cpython%3Epython3%20known_bits_popcount.py%0AMain%20constraints%20satisfiable.%0AConstraints%20are%20valid%20(negation%20unsatisfiable).

jatin-bhateja · 2025-09-25T15:58:27Z

Hi @SirYwell , @chhagedorn , @eme64 , I have addressed your comments. Let me know if this is good to land in.

SirYwell

Looks good to me now, although I'm not exactly sure about the semantics of widen and whether Type::WidenMax is the right choice here. Someone else has to look at that.

Thanks for the work!

liach

A suggestion, we might do this as a later RFE.

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp

jatin-bhateja · 2025-09-29T17:16:13Z

Looks good to me now, although I'm not exactly sure about the semantics of widen and whether Type::WidenMax is the right choice here. Someone else has to look at that.

Thanks for the work!

Hi @TobiHartmann @chhagedorn , can you kindly run this through your testing and share if its good to land in.

TobiHartmann · 2025-10-03T08:38:40Z

I submitted testing for this and will report back once it finished.

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp

TobiHartmann · 2025-10-06T07:50:41Z

Testing all passed. I'll pass the review to someone else.

eirbjo · 2025-10-06T08:07:14Z

Is the core-libs label appropriate for this PR? Looks hotspot specific?

SirYwell · 2025-10-06T08:12:32Z

Is the core-libs label appropriate for this PR? Looks hotspot specific?

That label was added automatically, closely after https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk-dev/2025-September/010486.html. Not sure why, but the change is definitely hotspot specific.

eirbjo · 2025-10-06T08:17:29Z

That label was added automatically, closely after https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk-dev/2025-September/010486.html. Not sure why, but the change is definitely hotspot specific.

Right, makes sense. I'll go ahead and remove that label.

/label remove core-libs

openjdk · 2025-10-06T08:18:27Z

@eirbjo
The core-libs label was successfully removed.

jatin-bhateja · 2025-10-06T08:22:52Z

Hi @merykitty , Can you kindly be the second reviewer?

liach · 2025-10-06T15:20:52Z

FYI this patch was marked core-libs because of the benchmark addition in java/lang. I wonder if it belongs to vm/compiler instead.

merykitty

LGTM otherwise

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp

jatin-bhateja · 2025-10-09T06:23:05Z

Hi @TobiHartmann, we have @merykitty and @SirYwell clearance, need your approval to land this.

jatin-bhateja · 2025-10-13T06:02:13Z

Hi @TobiHartmann, Looking forward to your approval here.

eme64

I'm back from vacation. Code looks good to me now. But running some internal testing before approval ;)

eme64

Tests passed -> approved 👍

@jatin-bhateja Thanks for the work!

jatin-bhateja · 2025-10-13T11:41:45Z

Thanks @SirYwell , @eme64 ,@merykitty

jatin-bhateja · 2025-10-14T03:33:04Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2025-10-14T03:35:12Z

Going to push as commit 4496418.
Since your change was applied there have been 606 commits pushed to the master branch:

d6ca382: 8369335: Two sun/java2d/OpenGL tests fail on Windows after JDK-8358058
4ca4485: 8365588: defineClass that accepts a ByteBuffer does not work as expected
1d6cafd: 8369452: Locale.Builder.setLanguageTag(String) does not clear on empty or null String
... and 603 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/2a5f149bb8e26277778465fff670591c929842de...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2025-10-14T03:35:20Z

@jatin-bhateja Pushed as commit 4496418.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

8365205: C2: Optimize popcount value computation using knownbits

c83be33

openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Sep 3, 2025

jatin-bhateja marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2025 05:42

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Sep 4, 2025

jbhateja and others added 2 commits September 5, 2025 22:37

New IR test addition and review resolutions

a68fbc0

Update countbitsnode.cpp

52ae6bc

eme64 suggested changes Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

jatin-bhateja and others added 4 commits September 10, 2025 17:52

Update src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp

36ecb5d

Co-authored-by: Emanuel Peter <emanuel.peter@oracle.com>

review resoultions

f1095b5

Update TestPopCountValueTransforms.java

9e3957d

Adding random bound test point

a7f9b79

eme64 reviewed Sep 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Extending the random ranges

278f1dc

eme64 suggested changes Sep 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Sep 18, 2025

Review comments resolutions

367622b

eme64 suggested changes Sep 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/TestPopCountValueTransforms.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update TestPopCountValueTransforms.java

92cf2fa

SirYwell reviewed Sep 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

SirYwell approved these changes Sep 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

liach reviewed Sep 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

merykitty reviewed Oct 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Review comments resolution

85b10e8

openjdk bot removed the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Oct 6, 2025

merykitty approved these changes Oct 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/opto/countbitsnode.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Review comments resolutions

49cdf29

eme64 reviewed Oct 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

eme64 approved these changes Oct 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Oct 13, 2025

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Oct 14, 2025

openjdk bot closed this Oct 14, 2025

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Oct 14, 2025

8365205: C2: Optimize popcount value computation using knownbits #27075

8365205: C2: Optimize popcount value computation using knownbits #27075

Conversation

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 3, 2025 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Sep 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Sep 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

SirYwell commented Sep 4, 2025

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 9, 2025

Uh oh!

eme64 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eme64 Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eme64 commented Sep 18, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Sep 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 19, 2025

Uh oh!

eme64 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

SirYwell Sep 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja Sep 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

SirYwell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

liach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 3, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Sep 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Sep 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Sep 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jatin-bhateja Sep 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jatin-bhateja commented Sep 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jatin-bhateja commented Oct 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jatin-bhateja commented Oct 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading