👋 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.

@jatin-bhateja This change is no longer ready for integration - check the PR body for details.

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

• core-libs
• graal
• hotspot

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

/label add hotspot-compiler-dev

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

@jatin-bhateja This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply issue a /touch or /keepalive command to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

/keepalive

@jatin-bhateja The pull request is being re-evaluated and the inactivity timeout has been reset.

@jatin-bhateja this pull request can not be integrated into master due to one or more merge conflicts. To resolve these merge conflicts and update this pull request you can run the following commands in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout JDK-8303762
git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git master
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge master"
git push

@jatin-bhateja This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply issue a /touch or /keepalive command to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

Performance after AVX2 backend modifications

Benchmark (size) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
VectorSliceBenchmark.byteVectorSliceWithConstantIndex1 1024 thrpt 2 51644.530 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.byteVectorSliceWithConstantIndex2 1024 thrpt 2 48171.079 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.byteVectorSliceWithVariableIndex 1024 thrpt 2 9662.306 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.intVectorSliceWithConstantIndex1 1024 thrpt 2 14358.347 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.intVectorSliceWithConstantIndex2 1024 thrpt 2 14619.920 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.intVectorSliceWithVariableIndex 1024 thrpt 2 6675.824 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.longVectorSliceWithConstantIndex1 1024 thrpt 2 818.911 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.longVectorSliceWithConstantIndex2 1024 thrpt 2 4778.321 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.longVectorSliceWithVariableIndex 1024 thrpt 2 1612.264 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.shortVectorSliceWithConstantIndex1 1024 thrpt 2 35961.146 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.shortVectorSliceWithConstantIndex2 1024 thrpt 2 39072.170 ops/ms
VectorSliceBenchmark.shortVectorSliceWithVariableIndex 1024 thrpt 2 11209.685 ops/ms

Webrevs

• 21: Full - Incremental (46fcc9ac)
• 20: Full - Incremental (c5950031)
• 19: Full - Incremental (2834a027)
• 18: Full - Incremental (ad7151e9)
• 17: Full - Incremental (121c40a8)
• 16: Full (bde0c216)
• 15: Full - Incremental (2b8f0b48)
• 14: Full - Incremental (9625b04e)
• 13: Full - Incremental (444a3568)
• 12: Full (1dfff558)
• 11: Full - Incremental (ae242926)
• 10: Full - Incremental (2c7eb96d)
• 09: Full (4b807102)
• 08: Full (9da1f862)
• 07: Full - Incremental (340f1849)
• 06: Full - Incremental (70c22932)
• 05: Full - Incremental (d55fa594)
• 04: Full - Incremental (f36ae6dd)
• 03: Full - Incremental (405de56f)
• 02: Full (e7c7374b)
• 01: Full - Incremental (04be59a6)
• 00: Full (b2e93434)

@jatin-bhateja I agree with @iwanowww that the PR could be split into two: One handling the intrinsification failure/fallback handling and other with vector slice optimization for x86. That might help you to get reviews on this work. I volunteer to review the x86 PR. Order wise, the fallback PR would need to get in first though.

@jatin-bhateja I agree with @iwanowww that the PR could be split into two: One handling the intrinsification failure/fallback handling and other with vector slice optimization for x86. That might help you to get reviews on this work. I volunteer to review the x86 PR. Order wise, the fallback PR would need to get in first though.

Hi @sviswa7 ,
Almost all the fallback code apart from few (unslice, slice etc) use scalar operation loop to compute the result, a box created on caller side on account of failed intrinsic will not be unboxed on callee side i.e. fall back implementation. In this context, inlining the fallback will save the call overhead but not prevent boxing penalty or code bloating on callee side which may have other side effects. Which is why this PR selectively enables in lining of slice fallback which is composed of vector APIs and code for that is part of this pull request.

May I request you to kindly review the x86 backend implementation part of this pull request and share your feedback.

Best Regards

Hi @iwanowww , kindly let us know your comments on current implementation.

Hi @sviswa7 , your comments have been addressed, kindly verify

/template append

@jatin-bhateja The pull request template has been appended to the pull request body

The total number of required reviews for this PR has been set to 2 based on the presence of these labels: hotspot, hotspot-compiler. This can be overridden with the /reviewers command.