Axioms that good definitions of ObjectReference must satisfy

[wks]

This is not an issue we should solve immediately. It is intended to be looked up when we need to.

TL;DR: From time to time, we discuss the possibility to change the current definition of ObjectReference. In theory, it should be opaque to mmtk-core. But I have discovered that not all definitions are good. This issue summarizes what a good definition should be, enumerate some popular definitions and discuss whether they are good.

Related links:

• Issue:
  • "ObjectReference should be opaque": ObjectReference should be opaque #686
• Zulip:
  • Our last conversation. https://mmtk.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/262679-General/topic/Terminology.3A.20canonical.20object.20reference.20address.3F
  • General: https://mmtk.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/262673-mmtk-core/topic/object.20reference
  • Why handles won't work: https://mmtk.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/262673-mmtk-core/topic/Don't.20create.20ObjectReferences.20during.20GC
  • About internal references: https://mmtk.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/262673-mmtk-core/topic/Internal.20reference.20and.20handles

Not all definitions of ObjectReference are good

There is an argument that ObjectReference may be opaque to mmtk-core. However, some definitions won't work at all, and others won't work efficiently. I am trying to list statements that needs to be true for all good definitions of ObjectReference. Any definition that satisfies all of those statements should work.

It must be able to instantiate ObjectReference from Address

Copying GCs will copy objects, and create a new ObjectReference for the to-space copy.

Linear scanning will identify objects at addresses (using the global VO bit or a local bitmap), and generate ObjectReference for those addresses.

Conservative stack scanning scans the stack for addresses with VO bit set, then we convert the Address to ObjectReference verbatim.

Handles don't satisfy this statement. Handles are implemented with indirection tables, and creating a handle implies adding a new entry in the indirection table. This simply costs too much, and probably needs synchronization. After forwarding, we will need to delete old handles from indirection tables because they point to from-space copies. Moreover, handles are often local to mutator threads. A more rational definition will be that we define the content in an indirection table entry (which is an address) as an ObjectReference. In this way, if an object is moved, mmtk-core will use the new address as the new ObjectReference, and "forwarding a reference in a slot" will become "updating the address in the indirection table entry for the handle in the slot".

It must be efficient to get the start address of the object from the ObjectReference.

Given an ObjectReference, it must be able to get the start address of an object (i.e. whatever alloc returns). Its current API is ObjectModel::ref_to_object_start().

It must be efficient to get a unique address inside the object from the ObjectReference.

Given an ObjectReference, it must be able to get an address that is guaranteed to be inside the object, and this address needs to bt unique for the same object. Its current API is ObjectModel::ref_to_address().

That address is used for:

• Accessing on-the-side metadata
• Accessing SFT
• Testing whether an ObjectReference points to an object in a given space

In all case, the address is guaranteed to be in the same space where the object is allocated.

It must be efficient to do equality test for ObjectReference.

Currently we do equality test between ObjectReference values in a few places:

• After trace_object, we test if the object has been forwarded by comparing new_object == object.
  • We may change trace_object so that it returns Option<ObjectReference> so that we know if an object is forwarded without equality tests.
• In various assertions.
• In the "treadmill" where it uses a HashSet (Bug. See: Proper implementation of the treadmill algorithm #517)
• In ReferenceProcessor where it uses HashSet to de-duplicate ObjectReference instances.
  • Reference processing can be moved to the binding so that mmtk-core won't require ObjectReference to implement Eq.
• In sanity GC where we use a HashSet to record visited objects.
  • Can be replaced with an auxilliary bitmap, but that kind of defeat the purpose of sanity GC because we can use it to test if the metadata is implemented properly.

We may refactor them to make Eq unnecessary, but it will be counterintuitive if we can't compare ObjectReference for equality.

It must be hashable

As mentioned above, we sometimes put ObjectReference inside hash sets.

When copied, the from-space copy and the to-space copy are considered different objects.

This means when copying an object, the original ObjectReference refers to the from-space copy of the object, and the to-space copy of the object will have a different ObjectReference, and they must not compare equal. The process of "forwarding a reference in a slot" means replace the old ObjectReference in the slot with the new ObjectReference so that it now points to the to-space copy.

At the language level, "a reference to an object" does not change even if the GC moves the object. In other words, the high-level language is oblivious of object movement as a result of GC (unless object pinning is performed which allows the user to reveal the address of an object safely). The high-level language is also oblivious of duplicated copies of objects in concurrent copying GCs, such as Shenandoah, ZGC and Sapphire. That's why the VM (or the GC?) must implement a kind of equality operator that compares them as equal at the language level during concurrent copying, when the object has two copies simultaneously. This means language-level identities (such as unique IDs of language-level objects) are not good definitions of ObjectReference.

Other statements that is true

ObjectReference doesn't have to be the content of slots.

An object field (slot) can hold a handle, a fat pointer, an interior pointer, a tagged pointer, etc.

• If a slot holds a handle, we can define ObjectReference as the address in the indirection table entry.
• If a slot holds a fat pointer (a tuple of (pointer, offset)), we can define ObjectReference as the pointer part of the fat pointer.
• If a slot holds an interior pointer, we can define ObjectReference as the highest address that (1) is not higher than the interior pointer, and (2) VO bit is set at that address.
• If a slot holds a tagged pointer, we can define ObjectReference as the address without the tag bits.

In all cases, we can update the slot if an object is forwarded.

Examples of valid definitions

Starting address

Obviously. OpenJDK uses starting addresses of objects as ObjectReference.

Address at an offset from the object start.

JikesRVM does this.

Potential definitions

Tagged union of pointer and non-pointer value

Ruby does this. If a Ruby VALUE points to an object, its last three bits are all 0. The pointer will not have any tag bits. Other values (true, false, nil, small integers, etc.) are not references to objects. So we can simply define ObjectReference as "starting address" (or "address at an offset" if we add additional data in the front).

Tagged pointer without type info

V8 does this. The last bit is 1 if a slot holds a reference. The second last bit is 0 if it is a strong reference, and 1 if it is a weak reference. We may define ObjectReference as the address without the tag bits. MMTk won't be aware of those bits, and the binding is still able to update fields for forwarding.

We may define "the address with tag bits" (i.e. the slot content) as ObjectReference. MMTk will be able to generate address, but always with 0b01 as the last two bits. It is trivial to get the starting address and an in-object address by removing the tags. However, the VM binding will need to implement the Eq and the Hash trait manually and ignore the tag bits. This may not be the most efficient way to do it.

Tagged pointer or fat pointer with embedded type info

Some VMs may embed type information inside the pointer, or fat pointer. I heard JRocket did this, but never saw its implementation. This probably will not work because MMTk will have a hard time getting the type info when constructing an ObjectReference from an Address. It's not completely impossible, but it will need to load the type information from the object body, which may be inefficient. As I mentioned above, for such VMs, we can define the address part of the tagged pointer or fat pointer as ObjectReference.

Interior pointer

Probably not a good idea because every time it needs to get the object start or the unique "in-object address", it needs to scan the VO bit bitmap backwards. We may introduce an InteriorPointer type in mmtk-core, but as I mentioned above, it is not necessary.

[qinsoon]

One thing that concerns me is that most of the 'axioms' are deduced from the current code. As the code may not be correct, the conclusions drawn from the code may not be correct. We should define the semantics of ObjectReference, and then make our code consistent with the semantics, rather than the other way around.

I will discuss them one by one.

It must be able to instantiate ObjectReference from Address

Did you mean ObjectReference should be instantiated solely from Address? If so, this may not be true. A binding could use any sort of information (such as a global table) besides the Address to constitute an ObjectReference, especially when it is already doing such for its own GC implementation. It may not be a performant implementation. But as long as it does not make MMTk slower, it should be a valid way to implement ObjectReference.

It must be efficient to get the start address of the object from the ObjectReference.

We do not require ref_to_object_start to be efficient. This is the reason why we have two different methods ref_to_address and ref_to_object_start. We require the former to be efficient, while we are much more relaxed on the latter.

It must be efficient to do equality test for ObjectReference.
It must be hashable

These are all based on the current implementation. The discussion already mentioned alternatives without comparing equality. I think the actual question we would need to answer is that whether we allow different object references to refer to the same object.

[wks]

One thing that concerns me is that most of the 'axioms' are deduced from the current code. As the code may not be correct, the conclusions drawn from the code may not be correct. We should define the semantics of ObjectReference, and then make our code consistent with the semantics, rather than the other way around.

Yes. They are deduced from the current code, for good reasons. MMTk implements the GC, and MMTk needs a concept to express the idea that satisfies the axioms I listed. For example, when copying an object, the object will have a from-space copy and a to-space copy, and they are different, when seen from the GC's point of view. Currently, we say that they have two different ObjectReferences, one referring to the from-space copy, and the other referring to the to-space copy. After copying, the reference needs to be forwarded. We tell the VM that the object reference needs to be updated from the old ObjectReference to the new ObjectReference (in OpenJDK, we store the new ObjectReference into the slot). However, people may argue that from a Java programmer's point of view, an object reference doesn't change when GC moves object, and in fact Java programmers are oblivious of the fact that GC may move objects (and it doesn't support object pinning to reveal object addresses). Java programmers may argue that the unique identity of an object is an "object reference", and it never changes as long as the object is live. Some VMs, such as Ruby, does give objects unique IDs, and Java programmers can implement such unique IDs using HashMap. However, such IDs are unsuitable to be used as the ObjectReference type in MMTk because MMTk needs a way to express that "the object moved from A to B", and needs a way to distinguish between the from-space copy and the to-space copy. This means ObjectReference cannot be 100% opaque to MMTk, but must satisfy some axioms. Well, we may think that the thing that distinguishes the from-space copy and the to-space copy should not be called an "object reference" (yet we have called it "object reference" since the inception of MMTk (JMTk)). We may argue that "we are using 'object reference' the wrong way when we are doing copying GC and reference forwarding" so that we can change the definition of ObjectReference and use a different term for object movement. That may worth some discussion, and that will be a very fundamental change to MMTk, but I don't object it.

I will discuss them one by one.

It must be able to instantiate ObjectReference from Address

Did you mean ObjectReference should be instantiated solely from Address? If so, this may not be true. A binding could use any sort of information (such as a global table) besides the Address to constitute an ObjectReference, especially when it is already doing such for its own GC implementation. It may not be a performant implementation. But as long as it does not make MMTk slower, it should be a valid way to implement ObjectReference.

It should be able to instantiate ObjectReference when given an Address. It is still allowed to load from the memory pointed by the Address (i.e. the object header), or look up any global table using the Address as a key. If the VM defines ObjectReference as something that includes additional information, and it is possible to reconstruct such information given the Address and the access to the memory and the table, it'll be OK.

It must be efficient to get the start address of the object from the ObjectReference.

We do not require ref_to_object_start to be efficient. This is the reason why we have two different methods ref_to_address and ref_to_object_start. We require the former to be efficient, while we are much more relaxed on the latter.

OK. "It must be possible to ..." should be a more accurate expression.

It must be efficient to do equality test for ObjectReference.
It must be hashable

These are all based on the current implementation. The discussion already mentioned alternatives without comparing equality. I think the actual question we would need to answer is that whether we allow different object references to refer to the same object.

Yes. That's the concern. That is, whether two ObjectReference instances that have different bit-by-bit representation may be considered equal. Another important thing is whether we consider the from-space copy and the to-space copy as equal, as I discussed before. (I also updated the original post and added one axiom for that.)