Monthly Archives: October 2013

2013-10-30

Why clone is faster than constructor copy

This post is a followup on my previous post about copying objects in Java. After I published that post I got a question from Sven Reimers (@SvenNB) why there is a big performance different between clone and copying via constructor. In this post I will try to answer this question.

Code in question

Just to recap what we are looking at. There are 2 classes implementing copy() method:

Copy via clone():

	package com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone;

	import com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass;

	public class CloneCopy extends BaseClass implements Cloneable {
	public static final CloneCopy INSTANCE;

	static {
	INSTANCE = new CloneCopy();
	INSTANCE.init();
	}

	@Override
	protected CloneCopy clone() {
	try {
	return (CloneCopy) super.clone();
	} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
	throw new Error(e);
	}
	}

	@Override
	public CloneCopy copy() {
	return clone();
	}
	}

view raw

CloneCopy.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Copy via constructor:

	package com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor;

	import com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass;

	public class ConstructorCopy extends BaseClass implements Cloneable {
	public static final ConstructorCopy INSTANCE;

	static {
	INSTANCE = new ConstructorCopy();
	INSTANCE.init();
	}

	public ConstructorCopy() {
	super();
	}

	public ConstructorCopy(ConstructorCopy copyFrom) {
	super(copyFrom);
	}

	@Override
	public ConstructorCopy copy() {
	return new ConstructorCopy(this);
	}
	}

view raw

ConstructorCopy.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Both of these classes inherit from the common base class that defines state to be copied:

	package com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives;

	import com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.Copyable;
	import com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.HashUtils;

	abstract class Root implements Copyable {
	private int field1;
	private char field2;
	public boolean field6;
	byte abc;
	public long min;
	public long max;
	private double maxExponent;

	public Root() {
	}

	public void init() {
	field1 = 100;
	field2 = '\t';
	field6 = false;
	abc = –100;
	min = Long.MIN_VALUE;
	max = Long.MAX_VALUE;
	maxExponent = Double.MAX_VALUE;
	}

	public Root(Root copyFrom) {
	field1 = copyFrom.field1;
	field2 = copyFrom.field2;
	field6 = copyFrom.field6;
	abc = copyFrom.abc;
	min = copyFrom.min;
	max = copyFrom.max;
	maxExponent = copyFrom.maxExponent;
	}

	@Override
	public boolean equals(Object obj) {
	if (obj == this) {
	return true;
	} else if (!(obj instanceof Root)) {
	return false;
	} else {
	Root tmp = (Root) obj;
	return field1 == tmp.field1 && field2 == tmp.field2 && field6 == tmp.field6
	&& abc == tmp.abc && min == tmp.min && max == tmp.max
	&& Double.compare(maxExponent, tmp.maxExponent) == 0;
	}
	}

	@Override
	public int hashCode() {
	int hash = 17;
	hash += 31 * hash + field1;
	hash += 31 * hash + field2;
	hash += 31 * hash + (field6 ? 1 : 0);
	hash += 31 * hash + abc;
	hash += 31 * hash + HashUtils.longHash(min);
	hash += 31 * hash + HashUtils.longHash(max);
	hash += 31 * hash + HashUtils.doubleHash(maxExponent);
	return hash;
	}
	}

	public abstract class BaseClass extends Root {
	private double anotherField;
	private int field1;
	protected long youCanSeeMe;
	private short m1;
	public short m2;
	public short m3;
	public short m4;
	short m5;
	public short m6;
	public short m7;
	protected short m8;
	public short m9;
	public short m10;
	private char x;

	public BaseClass() {
	super();
	}

	@Override
	public void init() {
	super.init();
	anotherField = 10.5;
	field1 = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
	youCanSeeMe = –1;
	m1 = 10;
	m2 = 20;
	m3 = 30;
	m4 = 40;
	m5 = 50;
	m6 = 60;
	m7 = 70;
	m8 = 80;
	m9 = 90;
	m10 = 100;
	x = '\n';
	}

	public BaseClass(BaseClass copyFrom) {
	super(copyFrom);
	anotherField = copyFrom.anotherField;
	field1 = copyFrom.field1;
	youCanSeeMe = copyFrom.youCanSeeMe;
	m1 = copyFrom.m1;
	m2 = copyFrom.m2;
	m3 = copyFrom.m3;
	m4 = copyFrom.m4;
	m5 = copyFrom.m5;
	m6 = copyFrom.m6;
	m7 = copyFrom.m7;
	m8 = copyFrom.m8;
	m9 = copyFrom.m9;
	m10 = copyFrom.m10;
	x = copyFrom.x;
	}

	@Override
	public boolean equals(Object obj) {
	if (obj == this) {
	return true;
	} else if (!(obj instanceof BaseClass)) {
	return false;
	} else {
	BaseClass tmp = (BaseClass) obj;
	return super.equals(tmp) && Double.compare(anotherField, tmp.anotherField) == 0
	&& field1 == tmp.field1 && youCanSeeMe == tmp.youCanSeeMe
	&& m1 == tmp.m1 && m2 == tmp.m2 && m3 == tmp.m3 && m4 == tmp.m4
	&& m5 == tmp.m5 && m6 == tmp.m6 && m7 == tmp.m7 && m8 == tmp.m8
	&& m9 == tmp.m9 && m10 == tmp.m10 && x == tmp.x;
	}
	}

	@Override
	public int hashCode() {
	int hash = super.hashCode();
	hash = 31 * hash + HashUtils.doubleHash(anotherField);
	hash = 31 * hash + field1;
	hash = 31 * hash + HashUtils.longHash(youCanSeeMe);
	hash = 31 * hash + m1;
	hash = 31 * hash + m2;
	hash = 31 * hash + m3;
	hash = 31 * hash + m4;
	hash = 31 * hash + m5;
	hash = 31 * hash + m6;
	hash = 31 * hash + m7;
	hash = 31 * hash + m8;
	hash = 31 * hash + m9;
	hash = 31 * hash + m10;
	hash = 31 * hash + x;
	return hash;
	}
	}

view raw

BaseClass.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Clone under the hood

java.lang.Object defines clone() method as native thus giving JVM possibility to use intrinsics. And in fact this is what OpenJDK JVM implementation is doing under the hood:

	/*
	* Defined in the hotspot/src/share/vm/classfile/vmSymbols.hpp
	*/

	#define VM_SYMBOLS_DO(template, do_alias) \
	/* commonly used class names */ \
	template(java_lang_System, "java/lang/System") \
	template(java_lang_Object, "java/lang/Object") \
	…

	#define VM_INTRINSICS_DO(do_intrinsic, do_class, do_name, do_signature, do_alias) \
	do_intrinsic(_hashCode, java_lang_Object, hashCode_name, void_int_signature, F_R) \
	do_name( hashCode_name, "hashCode") \
	do_intrinsic(_getClass, java_lang_Object, getClass_name, void_class_signature, F_R) \
	do_name( getClass_name, "getClass") \
	do_intrinsic(_clone, java_lang_Object, clone_name, void_object_signature, F_R) \
	do_name( clone_name, "clone") \
	…

view raw

CloneIntrinsics.hpp

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Unfortunately I was not able to find exactly how such intrinsified clone() method call would look like. If any of you knows the answer I would be more than happy to hear about it!

Test code and results

This time I won’t be using JMH running my tests, because I just need to force JVM to compile methods in question. For each case there is a dedicated test class (i.e. TestClone.java and TestConstructor.java) that invokes copy() method 500 000 times during warmup phase and then another 10 000 000 during actual test phase. These numbers are not particularly relevant and they were chosen to ensure that JVM will compile copy methods into native code.
I will use 1.7.0_45 JDK version.

Here are test classes:

	package com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject;

	import com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy;

	import java.util.ArrayList;
	import java.util.List;

	public class TestClone {
	public static List<Copyable> results;

	public static void main(String[] args) {
	runTest();
	}

	public static void runTest() {
	warmup();
	test();
	}

	private static void warmup() {
	doCopy(500_000, "warmup");
	}

	private static void doCopy(int iterations, String message) {
	results = new ArrayList<>(iterations);
	System.out.println("\n\n>>> In " + message);
	for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
	results.add(callCopy());
	}
	System.out.println("<<< " + message + " completed");
	}

	private int resultsHash() {
	return results.hashCode();
	}

	private static Copyable callCopy() {
	return CloneCopy.INSTANCE.copy();
	}


	private static void test() {
	doCopy(10_000_000, "test");
	}
	}

view raw

TestClone.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

	package com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject;

	import com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy;
	import com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy;

	import java.util.ArrayList;
	import java.util.List;

	public class TestConstructor {
	public static List<Copyable> results;

	public static void main(String[] args) {
	runTest();
	}

	public static void runTest() {
	warmup();
	test();
	}

	private static void warmup() {
	doCopy(500_000, "warmup");
	}

	private static void doCopy(int iterations, String message) {
	results = new ArrayList<>(iterations);
	System.out.println("\n\n>>> In " + message);
	for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
	results.add(callCopy());
	}
	System.out.println("<<< " + message + " completed");
	}

	private int resultsHash() {
	return results.hashCode();
	}

	private static Copyable callCopy() {
	return ConstructorCopy.INSTANCE.copy();
	}


	private static void test() {
	doCopy(10_000_000, "test");
	}
	}

view raw

TestConstructor.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

I ran both tests with -XX:+PrintCompilation option and got the following results:

Clone:

	java -XX:+PrintCompilation com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone
	59 1 java.lang.String::hashCode (55 bytes)
	61 2 java.lang.String::indexOf (70 bytes)
	69 3 sun.nio.cs.UTF_8$Encoder::encode (361 bytes)
	77 4 java.util.ArrayList::add (29 bytes)
	77 5 java.util.ArrayList::ensureCapacityInternal (23 bytes)
	77 7 n java.lang.Object::clone (native)
	78 6 java.util.ArrayList::ensureExplicitCapacity (26 bytes)
	78 8 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::callCopy (7 bytes)
	78 9 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::copy (5 bytes)
	79 10 ! com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::clone (18 bytes)
	79 11 % com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::doCopy @ 38 (92 bytes)
	105 12 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::doCopy (92 bytes)

view raw

PrintCompilationClone.txt

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Constructor:

	java -XX:+PrintCompilation com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor
	59 1 java.lang.String::hashCode (55 bytes)
	61 2 java.lang.String::indexOf (70 bytes)
	70 3 sun.nio.cs.UTF_8$Encoder::encode (361 bytes)
	77 4 java.lang.Object::<init> (1 bytes)
	80 5 java.util.ArrayList::add (29 bytes)
	80 6 java.util.ArrayList::ensureCapacityInternal (23 bytes)
	81 7 java.util.ArrayList::ensureExplicitCapacity (26 bytes)
	81 8 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy (7 bytes)
	81 9 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy (9 bytes)
	83 10 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init> (6 bytes)
	83 11 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init> (118 bytes)
	83 12 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init> (61 bytes)
	83 13 % com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::doCopy @ 38 (92 bytes)
	113 14 com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::doCopy (92 bytes)

view raw

PrintCompilationCopyContructor.txt

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

This by itself is not telling us much except that in the second (constructor) case there are 2 more entries that were compiled (i.e. BaseClass::<init> and Root::<init>).

The real fun is to look into generated assembler code (i.e. -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:+PrintAssembly). If you want to know how to dump assembly you can use java-print-assembly instructions provided by Nitsan Wakart on his blog. Links to proper binaries saved me tons of time today. 😉

I will show here only relevant part of the assembly dumps which contain only compiled callCopy() method from each test class, because it is the one we are interested in:

Clone (complete ASM code):

	Decoding compiled method 0x00000001063b9390:
	Code:
	[Entry Point]
	[Verified Entry Point]
	[Constants]
	# {method} 'callCopy' '()Lcom/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/Copyable;' in 'com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/TestClone'
	# [sp+0x20] (sp of caller)
	0x00000001063b94e0: mov %eax,-0x14000(%rsp)
	0x00000001063b94e7: push %rbp
	0x00000001063b94e8: sub $0x10,%rsp
	0x00000001063b94ec: mov 0x60(%r15),%rsi
	0x00000001063b94f0: mov %rsi,%r10
	0x00000001063b94f3: add $0x58,%r10
	0x00000001063b94f7: cmp 0x70(%r15),%r10
	0x00000001063b94fb: jae 0x00000001063b9557
	0x00000001063b94fd: mov %r10,0x60(%r15)
	0x00000001063b9501: prefetchnta 0xc0(%r10)
	0x00000001063b9509: mov $0xd7610ea1,%r11d ; {oop('com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/clone/CloneCopy')}
	0x00000001063b950f: mov 0xb0(%r12,%r11,8),%r10
	0x00000001063b9517: mov %r10,(%rsi)
	0x00000001063b951a: movl $0xd7610ea1,0x8(%rsi) ; {oop('com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/clone/CloneCopy')}
	0x00000001063b9521: mov %rsi,%rbx
	0x00000001063b9524: add $0x8,%rsi
	0x00000001063b9528: mov $0xa,%edx
	0x00000001063b952d: movabs $0x7957a9d90,%rdi ; {oop(a 'com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/clone/CloneCopy')}
	0x00000001063b9537: add $0x8,%rdi
	0x00000001063b953b: movabs $0x106398120,%r10
	0x00000001063b9545: callq %r10 ;invokespecial clone
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::clone@1 (line 16)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::copy@1 (line 24)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::callCopy@3 (line 38)
	0x00000001063b9548: mov %rbx,%rax
	0x00000001063b954b: add $0x10,%rsp
	0x00000001063b954f: pop %rbp
	0x00000001063b9550: test %eax,-0x1bcc556(%rip) # 0x00000001047ed000
	; {poll_return}
	0x00000001063b9556: retq
	0x00000001063b9557: movabs $0x6bb087508,%rsi ; {oop('com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/clone/CloneCopy')}
	0x00000001063b9561: xchg %ax,%ax
	0x00000001063b9563: callq 0x00000001063b4fe0 ; OopMap{off=136}
	;*invokespecial clone
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::clone@1 (line 16)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::copy@1 (line 24)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::callCopy@3 (line 38)
	; {runtime_call}
	0x00000001063b9568: mov %rax,%rsi
	0x00000001063b956b: jmp 0x00000001063b9521
	0x00000001063b956d: mov 0x8(%rax),%r10d
	0x00000001063b9571: cmp $0xd7610fdb,%r10d ; {oop('java/lang/CloneNotSupportedException')}
	0x00000001063b9578: je 0x00000001063b9587
	0x00000001063b957a: mov %rax,%rsi
	0x00000001063b957d: add $0x10,%rsp
	0x00000001063b9581: pop %rbp
	0x00000001063b9582: jmpq 0x00000001063b7e20 ; {runtime_call}
	0x00000001063b9587: mov %rax,%rbp ;*areturn
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::clone@7 (line 16)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::copy@1 (line 24)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::callCopy@3 (line 38)
	0x00000001063b958a: mov $0x5,%esi
	0x00000001063b958f: callq 0x000000010638ef20 ; OopMap{rbp=Oop off=180}
	;*new ; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::clone@9 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::copy@1 (line 24)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::callCopy@3 (line 38)
	; {runtime_call}
	0x00000001063b9594: callq 0x0000000105c165de ;*new
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::clone@9 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.clone.CloneCopy::copy@1 (line 24)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone::callCopy@3 (line 38)
	; {runtime_call}
	0x00000001063b9599: hlt
	0x00000001063b959a: hlt
	0x00000001063b959b: hlt
	0x00000001063b959c: hlt
	0x00000001063b959d: hlt
	0x00000001063b959e: hlt
	0x00000001063b959f: hlt
	[Exception Handler]
	[Stub Code]
	0x00000001063b95a0: jmpq 0x00000001063b50a0 ; {no_reloc}
	[Deopt Handler Code]
	0x00000001063b95a5: callq 0x00000001063b95aa
	0x00000001063b95aa: subq $0x5,(%rsp)
	0x00000001063b95af: jmpq 0x000000010638eb00 ; {runtime_call}
	0x00000001063b95b4: hlt
	0x00000001063b95b5: hlt
	0x00000001063b95b6: hlt
	0x00000001063b95b7: hlt

view raw

CloneGeneratedAssembler.asm

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Constructor (complete ASM code):

	Decoding compiled method 0x000000010c064b50:
	Code:
	[Entry Point]
	[Verified Entry Point]
	[Constants]
	# {method} 'callCopy' '()Lcom/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/Copyable;' in 'com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/TestConstructor'
	# [sp+0x20] (sp of caller)
	0x000000010c064ca0: mov %eax,-0x14000(%rsp)
	0x000000010c064ca7: push %rbp
	0x000000010c064ca8: sub $0x10,%rsp ;*synchronization entry
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@-1 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064cac: mov 0x60(%r15),%r8
	0x000000010c064cb0: mov %r8,%r10
	0x000000010c064cb3: add $0x58,%r10
	0x000000010c064cb7: cmp 0x70(%r15),%r10
	0x000000010c064cbb: jae 0x000000010c064de3
	0x000000010c064cc1: mov %r10,0x60(%r15)
	0x000000010c064cc5: prefetchnta 0xc0(%r10)
	0x000000010c064ccd: mov %r8,%rdi
	0x000000010c064cd0: add $0x10,%rdi
	0x000000010c064cd4: mov $0xd7610e71,%r10d ; {oop('com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/constructor/ConstructorCopy')}
	0x000000010c064cda: mov 0xb0(%r12,%r10,8),%r10
	0x000000010c064ce2: mov %r10,(%r8)
	0x000000010c064ce5: movl $0xd7610e71,0x8(%r8) ; {oop('com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/constructor/ConstructorCopy')}
	0x000000010c064ced: mov %r12d,0xc(%r8)
	0x000000010c064cf1: mov $0x9,%ecx
	0x000000010c064cf6: xor %rax,%rax
	0x000000010c064cf9: shl $0x3,%rcx
	0x000000010c064cfd: rep rex.W stos %al,%es:(%rdi) ;*new
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@0 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d00: mov %r8,%rax ;*areturn
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@6 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d03: movabs $0x7957aa098,%r9 ; {oop(a 'com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/constructor/ConstructorCopy')}
	0x000000010c064d0d: mov 0xc(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064d11: mov %r11d,0xc(%r8) ;*putfield field1
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init>@9 (line 29)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@2 (line 106)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d15: movzwl 0x54(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064d1a: mov %r10w,0x54(%r8) ;*putfield x
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@114 (line 120)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d1f: movswl 0x52(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064d24: mov %r11w,0x52(%r8) ;*putfield m10
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@106 (line 119)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d29: movswl 0x50(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064d2e: mov %r10w,0x50(%r8) ;*putfield m9
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@98 (line 118)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d33: movswl 0x4e(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064d38: mov %r11w,0x4e(%r8) ;*putfield m8
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@90 (line 117)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d3d: movswl 0x4c(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064d42: mov %r10w,0x4c(%r8) ;*putfield m7
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@82 (line 116)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d47: movswl 0x4a(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064d4c: mov %r11w,0x4a(%r8) ;*putfield m6
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@74 (line 115)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d51: movswl 0x48(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064d56: mov %r10w,0x48(%r8) ;*putfield m5
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@66 (line 114)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d5b: movswl 0x46(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064d60: mov %r11w,0x46(%r8) ;*putfield m4
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@58 (line 113)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d65: movswl 0x44(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064d6a: mov %r10w,0x44(%r8) ;*putfield m3
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@50 (line 112)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d6f: movswl 0x42(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064d74: mov %r11w,0x42(%r8) ;*putfield m2
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@42 (line 111)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d79: movswl 0x40(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064d7e: mov %r10w,0x40(%r8) ;*putfield m1
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@34 (line 110)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d83: mov 0x38(%r9),%r10
	0x000000010c064d87: mov %r10,0x38(%r8) ;*putfield youCanSeeMe
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@26 (line 109)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d8b: vmovsd 0x30(%r9),%xmm0
	0x000000010c064d91: vmovsd %xmm0,0x30(%r8) ;*putfield anotherField
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@10 (line 107)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d97: mov 0x2c(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064d9b: mov %r11d,0x2c(%r8) ;*putfield field1
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@18 (line 108)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064d9f: movsbl 0x2b(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064da4: mov %r10b,0x2b(%r8) ;*putfield abc
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init>@33 (line 32)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@2 (line 106)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064da8: movzbl 0x2a(%r9),%r11d
	0x000000010c064dad: mov %r11b,0x2a(%r8) ;*putfield field6
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init>@25 (line 31)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@2 (line 106)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064db1: movzwl 0x28(%r9),%r10d
	0x000000010c064db6: mov %r10w,0x28(%r8) ;*putfield field2
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init>@17 (line 30)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@2 (line 106)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064dbb: vmovsd 0x20(%r9),%xmm0
	0x000000010c064dc1: vmovsd %xmm0,0x20(%r8) ;*putfield maxExponent
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init>@57 (line 35)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@2 (line 106)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064dc7: mov 0x18(%r9),%r10
	0x000000010c064dcb: mov %r10,0x18(%r8) ;*putfield max
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init>@49 (line 34)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@2 (line 106)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064dcf: mov 0x10(%r9),%r10
	0x000000010c064dd3: mov %r10,0x10(%r8) ;*putfield min
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.Root::<init>@41 (line 33)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.BaseClass::<init>@2 (line 106)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::<init>@2 (line 18)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@5 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064dd7: add $0x10,%rsp
	0x000000010c064ddb: pop %rbp
	0x000000010c064ddc: test %eax,-0x10b4de2(%rip) # 0x000000010afb0000
	; {poll_return}
	0x000000010c064de2: retq
	0x000000010c064de3: movabs $0x6bb087388,%rsi ; {oop('com/vyazelenko/blog/copyobject/primitives/constructor/ConstructorCopy')}
	0x000000010c064ded: xchg %ax,%ax
	0x000000010c064def: callq 0x000000010c05efe0 ; OopMap{off=340}
	;*new ; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@0 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	; {runtime_call}
	0x000000010c064df4: mov %rax,%r8
	0x000000010c064df7: jmpq 0x000000010c064d00 ;*new
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.primitives.constructor.ConstructorCopy::copy@0 (line 23)
	; – com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor::callCopy@3 (line 39)
	0x000000010c064dfc: mov %rax,%rsi
	0x000000010c064dff: add $0x10,%rsp
	0x000000010c064e03: pop %rbp
	0x000000010c064e04: jmpq 0x000000010c061e20 ; {runtime_call}
	0x000000010c064e09: hlt
	0x000000010c064e0a: hlt
	0x000000010c064e0b: hlt
	0x000000010c064e0c: hlt
	0x000000010c064e0d: hlt
	0x000000010c064e0e: hlt
	0x000000010c064e0f: hlt
	0x000000010c064e10: hlt
	0x000000010c064e11: hlt
	0x000000010c064e12: hlt
	0x000000010c064e13: hlt
	0x000000010c064e14: hlt
	0x000000010c064e15: hlt
	0x000000010c064e16: hlt
	0x000000010c064e17: hlt
	0x000000010c064e18: hlt
	0x000000010c064e19: hlt
	0x000000010c064e1a: hlt
	0x000000010c064e1b: hlt
	0x000000010c064e1c: hlt
	0x000000010c064e1d: hlt
	0x000000010c064e1e: hlt
	0x000000010c064e1f: hlt
	[Exception Handler]
	[Stub Code]
	0x000000010c064e20: jmpq 0x000000010c05f0a0 ; {no_reloc}
	[Deopt Handler Code]
	0x000000010c064e25: callq 0x000000010c064e2a
	0x000000010c064e2a: subq $0x5,(%rsp)
	0x000000010c064e2f: jmpq 0x000000010c038b00 ; {runtime_call}
	0x000000010c064e34: hlt
	0x000000010c064e35: hlt
	0x000000010c064e36: hlt
	0x000000010c064e37: hlt

view raw

CopyConstructorGeneratedAssembler.asm

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

As you can see clone case has much shorter assembler code and basically it is just an *invokespecial clone invocation. Whereas in the constructor case we see much bigger assembler output and in essence it contains multiple *putfield invocations.

CPU counters

Eventually I managed to compile Intel Performance Counter Monitor 2.5.1 on my OS X 10.9.
Here are the results of running clone and constructor code under PCM (NB: I changed number of iterations to 20'000'000 in test() method for this run):

Clone:

	pcm.x "java -Xms4g -Xmx5g com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone" -nc -ns

	Intel(r) Performance Counter Monitor V2.5.1 (2013-06-25 13:44:03 +0200 ID=76b6d1f)

	Copyright (c) 2009-2012 Intel Corporation

	Num logical cores: 8
	Num sockets: 1
	Threads per core: 2
	Core PMU (perfmon) version: 3
	Number of core PMU generic (programmable) counters: 4
	Width of generic (programmable) counters: 48 bits
	Number of core PMU fixed counters: 3
	Width of fixed counters: 48 bits
	Nominal core frequency: 2700000000 Hz
	Package thermal spec power: 45 Watt; Package minimum power: 36 Watt; Package maximum power: 0 Watt;

	Detected Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820QM CPU @ 2.70GHz "Intel(r) microarchitecture codename Ivy Bridge"

	Executing "java -Xms4g -Xmx5g com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestClone" command:

	…


	EXEC : instructions per nominal CPU cycle
	IPC : instructions per CPU cycle
	FREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
	AFREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency while in active state (not in power-saving C state)='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks while in C0-state' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
	L3MISS: L3 cache misses
	L2MISS: L2 cache misses (including other core's L2 cache hits)
	L3HIT : L3 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
	L2HIT : L2 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
	L3CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to L3 cache misses (0.00-1.00), in some cases could be >1.0 due to a higher memory latency
	L2CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to missing L2 cache but still hitting L3 cache (0.00-1.00)
	READ : bytes read from memory controller (in GBytes)
	WRITE : bytes written to memory controller (in GBytes)
	TEMP : Temperature reading in 1 degree Celsius relative to the TjMax temperature (thermal headroom): 0 corresponds to the max temperature


	Core (SKT) \| EXEC \| IPC \| FREQ \| AFREQ \| L3MISS \| L2MISS \| L3HIT \| L2HIT \| L3CLK \| L2CLK \| READ \| WRITE \| TEMP

	——————————————————————————————————————-
	TOTAL * 0.39 0.65 0.60 1.30 51 M 67 M 0.23 0.30 0.57 0.05 N/A N/A N/A

	Instructions retired: 10 G ; Active cycles: 16 G ; Time (TSC): 3425 Mticks ; C0 (active,non-halted) core residency: 46.24 %

	C1 core residency: 11.19 %; C3 core residency: 0.01 %; C6 core residency: 0.00 %; C7 core residency: 42.57 %
	C2 package residency: 0.00 %; C3 package residency: 0.00 %; C6 package residency: 0.00 %; C7 package residency: 0.00 %

	PHYSICAL CORE IPC : 1.29 => corresponds to 32.32 % utilization for cores in active state
	Instructions per nominal CPU cycle: 0.78 => corresponds to 19.43 % core utilization over time interval
	———————————————————————————————-

view raw

TestClonePCM.txt

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Constructor:

	"java -Xms4g -Xmx5g com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor" -nc -ns

	Intel(r) Performance Counter Monitor V2.5.1 (2013-06-25 13:44:03 +0200 ID=76b6d1f)

	Copyright (c) 2009-2012 Intel Corporation

	Num logical cores: 8
	Num sockets: 1
	Threads per core: 2
	Core PMU (perfmon) version: 3
	Number of core PMU generic (programmable) counters: 4
	Width of generic (programmable) counters: 48 bits
	Number of core PMU fixed counters: 3
	Width of fixed counters: 48 bits
	Nominal core frequency: 2700000000 Hz
	Package thermal spec power: 45 Watt; Package minimum power: 36 Watt; Package maximum power: 0 Watt;

	Detected Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820QM CPU @ 2.70GHz "Intel(r) microarchitecture codename Ivy Bridge"

	Executing "java -Xms4g -Xmx5g com.vyazelenko.blog.copyobject.TestConstructor" command:
	…

	EXEC : instructions per nominal CPU cycle
	IPC : instructions per CPU cycle
	FREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
	AFREQ : relation to nominal CPU frequency while in active state (not in power-saving C state)='unhalted clock ticks'/'invariant timer ticks while in C0-state' (includes Intel Turbo Boost)
	L3MISS: L3 cache misses
	L2MISS: L2 cache misses (including other core's L2 cache hits)
	L3HIT : L3 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
	L2HIT : L2 cache hit ratio (0.00-1.00)
	L3CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to L3 cache misses (0.00-1.00), in some cases could be >1.0 due to a higher memory latency
	L2CLK : ratio of CPU cycles lost due to missing L2 cache but still hitting L3 cache (0.00-1.00)
	READ : bytes read from memory controller (in GBytes)
	WRITE : bytes written to memory controller (in GBytes)
	TEMP : Temperature reading in 1 degree Celsius relative to the TjMax temperature (thermal headroom): 0 corresponds to the max temperature


	Core (SKT) \| EXEC \| IPC \| FREQ \| AFREQ \| L3MISS \| L2MISS \| L3HIT \| L2HIT \| L3CLK \| L2CLK \| READ \| WRITE \| TEMP

	——————————————————————————————————————-
	TOTAL * 0.35 0.64 0.55 1.31 51 M 68 M 0.26 0.29 0.53 0.06 N/A N/A N/A

	Instructions retired: 11 G ; Active cycles: 17 G ; Time (TSC): 3988 Mticks ; C0 (active,non-halted) core residency: 41.93 %

	C1 core residency: 11.82 %; C3 core residency: 0.00 %; C6 core residency: 0.00 %; C7 core residency: 46.25 %
	C2 package residency: 0.00 %; C3 package residency: 0.00 %; C6 package residency: 0.00 %; C7 package residency: 0.00 %

	PHYSICAL CORE IPC : 1.27 => corresponds to 31.76 % utilization for cores in active state
	Instructions per nominal CPU cycle: 0.70 => corresponds to 17.38 % core utilization over time interval
	———————————————————————————————-

view raw

TestConstructorPCM.txt

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

What this output shows is that clone case is faster because amount of instructions executed is lower, i.e. there is less code to execute:

TestClone:

Instructions retired: 10 G ; Active cycles: 16 G ; Time (TSC): 3425 Mticks
TestConstructor:

Instructions retired: 11 G ; Active cycles: 17 G ; Time (TSC): 3988 Mticks

1 Comment | tags: clone, copy, Java | posted in Java, Performance, Uncategorized

2013-10-29

Copy object in Java (performance comparison)

By Dmitry Vyazelenko

This blog came about because I was looking into performance issue and profiling showed that a method that was copying objects was very slow. (NB: The fact that this method was called millions of times was an actual bug not the slowness of the copy routine.)

The method to copy object was performing field by field copy using class.getDeclaredFeilds() method to obtain all fields of the class and then doing copy recursively for all super classes. Code below shows entire thing:

	public static void copyFieldByField(Object src, Object dest) {
	copyFields(src, dest, src.getClass());
	}

	private static void copyFields(Object src, Object dest, Class<?> klass) {
	Field[] fields = klass.getDeclaredFields();
	for (Field f : fields) {
	f.setAccessible(true);
	copyFieldValue(src, dest, f);
	}

	klass = klass.getSuperclass();
	if (klass != null) {
	copyFields(src, dest, klass);
	}
	}

	private static void copyFieldValue(Object src, Object dest, Field f) {
	try {
	Object value = f.get(src);
	f.set(dest, value);
	} catch (ReflectiveOperationException e) {
	throw new RuntimeException(e);
	}
	}

view raw

CopyObjectFieldByField.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Profiling showed that this method spend 70% of it’s time in Field#copy() method. As it turns out that Class#getDeclaredFields() returns a copy of the Field[] array on every call, ouch! BTW, the JavaDoc of Class#getDeclaredFields() does not mention copy behavior at all.

List of approaches

Looking at the profiling results I started wondering what would be a better way to create a shallow copy of the object. Hence I needed to test performance of different approaches. For the simplicity I decided to look only on what is possibly with JDK 7 only (no fancy libraries) and came up with the following list:

Clone object – implement Cloneable interface and publish clone() method
Copy with copy constructor – copy fields from the source object directly in the constructor
Copy via reflection (field by field)
- getDeclaredFieds() as in original code
- getDeclaredFields() cached, i.e. call it once and remember list based on the Class
Serialization
- Default serialization – just implementing Serializable
- Custom serialization – implement Serialization and implement readObject() and writeObject() methods for reading and writing fields directly
- Implementing Externalizable interface
MethodHandles
- Use MethodHandle#invoke(Object... args) method
- Use MethodHandle#invokeWithArguments(Object... arguments) method
- Use MethodHandle#invokeExact(Object... args) method

Notes on implementation

Entire project with source code and test results is available on github (copy-object-benchmark.git).

Benchmarks are written using JMH framework from OpenJDK. For each class tested there is a method in the benchmark class that simply invokes copy() method on the constant object representing the class. For example:

	@GenerateMicroBenchmark
	public Object copyFieldByFieldGetFieldsEveryTime() {
	return FieldsCopy.INSTANCE.copy();
	}

	@GenerateMicroBenchmark
	public Object copyFieldByFieldUseCacheFields() {
	return CachedFieldsCopy.INSTANCE.copy();
	}

	@GenerateMicroBenchmark
	public Object copyByClone() {
	return CloneCopy.INSTANCE.copy();
	}

view raw

CopyBenchSample.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Every approach from the list above was benchmarked for 2 cases:

Primitive fields
Object fields

Because most of the approaches would incur significant overhead via boxing/unboxing.

For every kind of copy method there is a class that extends common super class (i.e. BaseClass) and implements copy() method. Since there are 2 use cases tests had to be duplicated in 2 different packages.

One last thing that is worth mentioning before I show the results is the handling of MethodHandle#invokeExact() case. This method is very special when it gets to invocation. Here is an example:

	import java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle;
	import java.lang.invoke.MethodHandles;

	class Base {
	int x = 13;
	}

	class Derived extends Base {
	public long m;
	}

	public class TestMH {
	public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable {
	MethodHandle mh = MethodHandles.lookup().findGetter(Base.class, "x", int.class);

	Derived obj = new Derived();

	// mh.invokeExact(obj); => throws WrongMethodTypeException:expected(Base)int but found (Derived)void

	// mh.invokeExact((Base) obj); => throws WrongMethodTypeException:expected(Base)int but found (Base)void

	int value = (int) mh.invokeExact((Base) obj);
	}
	}

view raw

MethodHandleInvokeExactSample.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

As you can see in order to call MethodHandle#invokeExact() it is necessary to match exactly arguments and return type of the method, otherwise such invocation will fail at runtime.

However it is not possible to know upfront all possible classes and return types if you want to write generic copy method. Therefore we need to adjust MethodHandle so it can be invoked in a generic manner. This is done by adjusting MethodType signatures of the MethodHandle as shown below:

	private static MethodHandle prepareGetter(MethodHandle mh) {
	return mh.asType(mh.type().changeParameterType(0, Object.class)
	.changeReturnType(Object.class));
	}

	private static MethodHandle prepareSetter(MethodHandle mh) {
	return mh.asType(mh.type().changeParameterType(0, Object.class)
	.changeParameterType(1, Object.class));
	}

view raw

PrepareMethodHandleForGenericInvocation.java

hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Basically this erases original information about declaration class and return types and instead uses Object for both thus allowing calling MethodHandle#invokeExact() providing instance of any class and expecting result as Object.

Results

I was running the benchmarks on my MacBook Pro laptop: OS X 10.9, 2.7 GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB of RAM. Tests were performed on the following JDKs:

1.7.0_25 (1.7.0_25-b15)
1.7.0_45 (1.7.0_45-b18)
JDK 8 build 112 (1.8.0-ea-b112)

Results are reported as throughput (operations/ms) with biggest numbers being the best. All charts are in logarithmic scale.

Results:

JDK 1.7.0_25:

Raw results are available here results-1.7.0_25.txt.

So in this version of JDK the best 3 methods were:
1. Clone
2. Copy constructor
3. Reflection
Also MethodHandles are very slow comparing to other approaches.
JDK 1.7.0_45:

Raw results results-1.7.0_45.txt.

In the 1.7.0_45 release we see that MethodHandle#invokeExact() got much faster (~5x times) to the point that it made it to top 3 copy methods (for primitives case). Also MethodHandle#invokeWithArguments() got slower. But otherwise the rest remains the same.
JDK 8 build 112:

Raw results results-1.8.0-ea-b112.txt.

JDK 8 build 112 brings significant performance improvements over JDK 7 results in two areas:
- Reflection
- MethodHandles
Most dramatic change was in the MethodHandler#invoke() case which now is more than 120x times faster! The changes were done originally proposed by John Rose on a JDK mailing list and implemented as part of the JDK-8024761: JSR 292 improve performance of generic invocation issue.

Along the way MethodHandle#invokeWithArguments() got faster as well.

Conclusions

New JDK releases bring performance improvements
New JDK versions bring new functionality that can be used in place of old approaches (e.g. MethodHandles)
JVM is extremely good at optimizing existing code, i.e. reflection is still faster than invoke dynamic (at least for Object case)
Read JavaDoc but step through the code in the debugger and not just through your own code but also JDK code
Write performance tests upfront to know whether selected approach meets performance requirements
Run performance tests against new JDK versions to avoid/detect performance regressions

Updates

I’ve published second blog post Clone vs copy constructor – a closer look in which I analyze performance difference of clone and copy constructor approaches.

7 Comments | tags: Copy object, invoke dynamic, Java 7, Java 8, MethodHandles, performance, Reflection, Serialization | posted in Java, Performance

Ideas Not For Sale