8367989: Remove InstanceKlass::allocate_objArray

[coleenp]

This change removes InstanceKlass::allocate_objArray and has its caller call ObjArrayKlass::allocate_instance directly from oopFactory, like the other array allocations do. See CR for more information why we should have this change. I also removed element_klass_addr() and moved element_klass_offset() to be in a more logical place near element_klass() functions. This upstreams a tiny valhalla diff.
Tested with tier1-4.

---

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-8367989: Remove InstanceKlass::allocate_objArray (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27372/head:pull/27372
$ git checkout pull/27372

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/27372
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27372/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 27372

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 27372

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27372.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back coleenp! 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]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

@coleenp The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot

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.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (f4f1d289)
• 00: Full (e1680b1c)

[stefank]

Before this change the two if/else branches had a symmetry that is lost with the proposed change. It makes you look at the code and wonder what the reason is for this asymmetry. Could the symmetry be retained by changing this to:

objArrayOop oopFactory::new_objArray(Klass* klass, int length, TRAPS) {
  ArrayKlass* ak;

  if (klass->is_array_klass()) {
    ak = ArrayKlass::cast(klass)->array_klass(CHECK_NULL);
  } else {
    ak = InstanceKlass::cast(klass)->array_klass(CHECK_NULL);
  }
  
  return ak->allocate_instance(length, THREAD);
}

Or if you dare to use a virtual call instead of the if branch:

objArrayOop oopFactory::new_objArray(Klass* klass, int length, TRAPS) {
  ArrayKlass* ak = klass->array_klass(CHECK_NULL);
  return ak->allocate_instance(length, THREAD);
}

If the virtual call is unwanted then we could add a new "faster" (unclear how much faster this actually is):

ArrayKlass* Klass::array_klass_fast(TRAPS) {
  ArrayKlass* ak;

  if (klass->is_array_klass()) {
    ak = ArrayKlass::cast(klass)->array_klass(CHECK_NULL);
  } else {
    ak = InstanceKlass::cast(klass)->array_klass(CHECK_NULL);
  }
 
  assert(ak == array_klass(), "The two functions should return the same result");
  return ak;
}
...
objArrayOop oopFactory::new_objArray(Klass* klass, int length, TRAPS) {
  ArrayKlass* ak = klass->array_klass_fast(CHECK_NULL);
  return ak->allocate_instance(length, THREAD);
}

(I've not compiled nor tested the above)

[coleenp]

It wasn't really symmetric except number of lines. One branch calls ArrayKlass::allocate_arrayArray, the other calls allocate_instance for ObjArray. Unless I refactor allocate_arrayArray into this, it still won't be symmetrical, and it's quite a bit different in the valhalla repo.

[coleenp]

It might make sense to refactor allocate_arrayArray into this though and remove that too.
Yes, I like suggestion #1. There are too many array allocation functions.