|
JOB REFERRALS
|
|
|
|
ON THIS PAGE
|
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| May, 2013 (1) |
| April, 2013 (4) |
| March, 2013 (4) |
| February, 2013 (5) |
| January, 2013 (8) |
| December, 2012 (3) |
| November, 2012 (5) |
| October, 2012 (4) |
| May, 2012 (1) |
| March, 2012 (6) |
| January, 2012 (4) |
| December, 2011 (2) |
| October, 2011 (2) |
| August, 2011 (1) |
| May, 2011 (1) |
| April, 2011 (1) |
| February, 2011 (1) |
| January, 2011 (1) |
| December, 2010 (1) |
| November, 2010 (1) |
| October, 2010 (3) |
| September, 2010 (4) |
| August, 2010 (2) |
| July, 2010 (1) |
| June, 2010 (1) |
| May, 2010 (3) |
| March, 2010 (5) |
| February, 2010 (1) |
| January, 2010 (4) |
| December, 2009 (1) |
| November, 2009 (3) |
| October, 2009 (3) |
| August, 2009 (2) |
| July, 2009 (4) |
| June, 2009 (3) |
| May, 2009 (6) |
| April, 2009 (4) |
| March, 2009 (4) |
| February, 2009 (5) |
| January, 2009 (11) |
| December, 2008 (3) |
| November, 2008 (9) |
| October, 2008 (1) |
| September, 2008 (2) |
| August, 2008 (4) |
| July, 2008 (10) |
| June, 2008 (5) |
| May, 2008 (10) |
| April, 2008 (13) |
| March, 2008 (11) |
| February, 2008 (18) |
| January, 2008 (17) |
| December, 2007 (12) |
| November, 2007 (2) |
| October, 2007 (6) |
| September, 2007 (1) |
| August, 2007 (2) |
| July, 2007 (7) |
| June, 2007 (1) |
| May, 2007 (1) |
| April, 2007 (2) |
| March, 2007 (2) |
| February, 2007 (1) |
| January, 2007 (16) |
| December, 2006 (3) |
| November, 2006 (7) |
| October, 2006 (5) |
| September, 2006 (1) |
| June, 2006 (4) |
| May, 2006 (3) |
| April, 2006 (3) |
| March, 2006 (17) |
| February, 2006 (5) |
| January, 2006 (13) |
| December, 2005 (2) |
| November, 2005 (6) |
| October, 2005 (15) |
| September, 2005 (16) |
| August, 2005 (17) |
|
|
|
CATEGORIES
|
|
|
|
|
BLOGROLL
|
|
|
|
|
LINKS
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH
|
|
|
|
|
MY BOOKS
|
|
|
|
|
DISCLAIMER
|
Powered by:
newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent
my employer's view in any way.
© Copyright
2013
,
Ted Neward
E-mail
|
|
|
|
|
 Wednesday, July 16, 2008
|
Object.hashCode implementation
|
|
After the previous post, I just had to look. The implementation of Object.equals is, as was previously noted, just "return this == obj", but the implementation of Object.hashCode is far more complicated. Taken straight from the latest hg-pulled OpenJDK sources, Object.hashCode is a native method registered from Object.c that calls into a Hotspot-exported function, JVM_IHashCode(), from hotspot\src\share\vm\prims\jvm.cpp: JVM_ENTRY(jint, JVM_IHashCode(JNIEnv* env, jobject handle)) JVMWrapper("JVM_IHashCode"); // as implemented in the classic virtual machine; return 0 if object is NULL return handle == NULL ? 0 : ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode (THREAD, JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(handle)) ; JVM_END
which in turn calls ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode, defined in hotspot\src\share\vm\runtime\synchronizer.cpp as:
intptr_t ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode (Thread * Self, oop obj) { if (UseBiasedLocking) { // NOTE: many places throughout the JVM do not expect a safepoint // to be taken here, in particular most operations on perm gen // objects. However, we only ever bias Java instances and all of // the call sites of identity_hash that might revoke biases have // been checked to make sure they can handle a safepoint. The // added check of the bias pattern is to avoid useless calls to // thread-local storage. if (obj->mark()->has_bias_pattern()) { // Box and unbox the raw reference just in case we cause a STW safepoint. Handle hobj (Self, obj) ; // Relaxing assertion for bug 6320749. assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() || !SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint(), "biases should not be seen by VM thread here"); BiasedLocking::revoke_and_rebias(hobj, false, JavaThread::current()); obj = hobj() ; assert(!obj->mark()->has_bias_pattern(), "biases should be revoked by now"); } }
// hashCode() is a heap mutator ... // Relaxing assertion for bug 6320749. assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() || !SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint(), "invariant") ; assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() || Self->is_Java_thread() , "invariant") ; assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() || ((JavaThread *)Self)->thread_state() != _thread_blocked, "invariant") ;
ObjectMonitor* monitor = NULL; markOop temp, test; intptr_t hash; markOop mark = ReadStableMark (obj);
// object should remain ineligible for biased locking assert (!mark->has_bias_pattern(), "invariant") ;
if (mark->is_neutral()) { hash = mark->hash(); // this is a normal header if (hash) { // if it has hash, just return it return hash; } hash = get_next_hash(Self, obj); // allocate a new hash code temp = mark->copy_set_hash(hash); // merge the hash code into header // use (machine word version) atomic operation to install the hash test = (markOop) Atomic::cmpxchg_ptr(temp, obj->mark_addr(), mark); if (test == mark) { return hash; } // If atomic operation failed, we must inflate the header // into heavy weight monitor. We could add more code here // for fast path, but it does not worth the complexity. } else if (mark->has_monitor()) { monitor = mark->monitor(); temp = monitor->header(); assert (temp->is_neutral(), "invariant") ; hash = temp->hash(); if (hash) { return hash; } // Skip to the following code to reduce code size } else if (Self->is_lock_owned((address)mark->locker())) { temp = mark->displaced_mark_helper(); // this is a lightweight monitor owned assert (temp->is_neutral(), "invariant") ; hash = temp->hash(); // by current thread, check if the displaced if (hash) { // header contains hash code return hash; } // WARNING: // The displaced header is strictly immutable. // It can NOT be changed in ANY cases. So we have // to inflate the header into heavyweight monitor // even the current thread owns the lock. The reason // is the BasicLock (stack slot) will be asynchronously // read by other threads during the inflate() function. // Any change to stack may not propagate to other threads // correctly. }
// Inflate the monitor to set hash code monitor = ObjectSynchronizer::inflate(Self, obj); // Load displaced header and check it has hash code mark = monitor->header(); assert (mark->is_neutral(), "invariant") ; hash = mark->hash(); if (hash == 0) { hash = get_next_hash(Self, obj); temp = mark->copy_set_hash(hash); // merge hash code into header assert (temp->is_neutral(), "invariant") ; test = (markOop) Atomic::cmpxchg_ptr(temp, monitor, mark); if (test != mark) { // The only update to the header in the monitor (outside GC) // is install the hash code. If someone add new usage of // displaced header, please update this code hash = test->hash(); assert (test->is_neutral(), "invariant") ; assert (hash != 0, "Trivial unexpected object/monitor header usage."); } } // We finally get the hash return hash; }
Hope this answers all the debates. 
Editor's note: Yes, I know it's a long quotation of code completely out of context; my goal here is simply to suggest that the hashCode() implementation is not just a integerification of the object's address in memory, as was suggested in other discussions. For whatever it's worth, the get_next_hash() implementation that's referenced in the FastHashCode() method looks like:
// hashCode() generation : // // Possibilities: // * MD5Digest of {obj,stwRandom} // * CRC32 of {obj,stwRandom} or any linear-feedback shift register function. // * A DES- or AES-style SBox[] mechanism // * One of the Phi-based schemes, such as: // 2654435761 = 2^32 * Phi (golden ratio) // HashCodeValue = ((uintptr_t(obj) >> 3) * 2654435761) ^ GVars.stwRandom ; // * A variation of Marsaglia's shift-xor RNG scheme. // * (obj ^ stwRandom) is appealing, but can result // in undesirable regularity in the hashCode values of adjacent objects // (objects allocated back-to-back, in particular). This could potentially // result in hashtable collisions and reduced hashtable efficiency. // There are simple ways to "diffuse" the middle address bits over the // generated hashCode values: //
static inline intptr_t get_next_hash(Thread * Self, oop obj) { intptr_t value = 0 ; if (hashCode == 0) { // This form uses an unguarded global Park-Miller RNG, // so it's possible for two threads to race and generate the same RNG. // On MP system we'll have lots of RW access to a global, so the // mechanism induces lots of coherency traffic. value = os::random() ; } else if (hashCode == 1) { // This variation has the property of being stable (idempotent) // between STW operations. This can be useful in some of the 1-0 // synchronization schemes. intptr_t addrBits = intptr_t(obj) >> 3 ; value = addrBits ^ (addrBits >> 5) ^ GVars.stwRandom ; } else if (hashCode == 2) { value = 1 ; // for sensitivity testing } else if (hashCode == 3) { value = ++GVars.hcSequence ; } else if (hashCode == 4) { value = intptr_t(obj) ; } else { // Marsaglia's xor-shift scheme with thread-specific state // This is probably the best overall implementation -- we'll // likely make this the default in future releases. unsigned t = Self->_hashStateX ; t ^= (t << 11) ; Self->_hashStateX = Self->_hashStateY ; Self->_hashStateY = Self->_hashStateZ ; Self->_hashStateZ = Self->_hashStateW ; unsigned v = Self->_hashStateW ; v = (v ^ (v >> 19)) ^ (t ^ (t >> 8)) ; Self->_hashStateW = v ; value = v ; }
value &= markOopDesc::hash_mask; if (value == 0) value = 0xBAD ; assert (value != markOopDesc::no_hash, "invariant") ; TEVENT (hashCode: GENERATE) ; return value; }
Thus (hopefully) putting the idea that it might be allocating a hash based on the object's identity completely to rest.
For the record, this is all from the OpenJDK source base--naturally, it's possible that earlier VM implementations did something entirely different.
|
|