java - jit会优化新对象吗

Question

我创建这个类是为了不可变并且有一个流畅的 API:

public final class Message {
    public final String email;
    public final String escalationEmail;
    public final String assignee;
    public final String conversationId;
    public final String subject;
    public final String userId;

    public Message(String email, String escalationEmail, String assignee, String conversationId, String subject, String userId) {
        this.email = email;
        this.escalationEmail = escalationEmail;
        this.assignee = assignee;
        this.conversationId = conversationId;
        this.subject = subject;
        this.userId = userId;
    }

    public Message() {
        email = "";
        escalationEmail = "";
        assignee = "";
        conversationId = "";
        subject = "";
        userId = "";
    }

    public Message email(String e) { return new Message(e, escalationEmail, assignee, conversationId, subject, userId); }
    public Message escalationEmail(String e) { return new Message(email, e, assignee, conversationId, subject, userId); }
    public Message assignee(String a) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, a, conversationId, subject, userId); }
    public Message conversationId(String c) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, assignee, c, subject, userId); }
    public Message subject(String s) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, assignee, conversationId, s, userId); }
    public Message userId(String u) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, assignee, conversationId, subject, u); }

}

我的问题是，当像这样创建新对象时，优化器是否能够避免大量对象创建:

Message m = new Message()
    .email("foo@bar.com")
    .assignee("bar@bax.com")
    .subject("subj");

创建一个单独的可变构建器对象有什么好处吗？

更新 2:阅读 apangin 的回答后，我的基准无效。我会把它放在这里以供引用如何不进行基准测试:)

更新:我冒昧地用这段代码自己测量了这一点:

public final class Message {
public final String email;
public final String escalationEmail;
public final String assignee;
public final String conversationId;
public final String subject;
public final String userId;

public static final class MessageBuilder {
    private String email;
    private String escalationEmail;
    private String assignee;
    private String conversationId;
    private String subject;
    private String userId;

    MessageBuilder email(String e) { email = e; return this; }
    MessageBuilder escalationEmail(String e) { escalationEmail = e; return this; }
    MessageBuilder assignee(String e) { assignee = e; return this; }
    MessageBuilder conversationId(String e) { conversationId = e; return this; }
    MessageBuilder subject(String e) { subject = e; return this; }
    MessageBuilder userId(String e) { userId = e; return this; }

    public Message create() {
        return new Message(email, escalationEmail, assignee, conversationId, subject, userId);
    }

}

public static MessageBuilder createNew() {
    return new MessageBuilder();
}

public Message(String email, String escalationEmail, String assignee, String conversationId, String subject, String userId) {
    this.email = email;
    this.escalationEmail = escalationEmail;
    this.assignee = assignee;
    this.conversationId = conversationId;
    this.subject = subject;
    this.userId = userId;
}

public Message() {
    email = "";
    escalationEmail = "";
    assignee = "";
    conversationId = "";
    subject = "";
    userId = "";
}

public Message email(String e) { return new Message(e, escalationEmail, assignee, conversationId, subject, userId); }
public Message escalationEmail(String e) { return new Message(email, e, assignee, conversationId, subject, userId); }
public Message assignee(String a) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, a, conversationId, subject, userId); }
public Message conversationId(String c) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, assignee, c, subject, userId); }
public Message subject(String s) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, assignee, conversationId, s, userId); }
public Message userId(String u) { return new Message(email, escalationEmail, assignee, conversationId, subject, u); }


static String getString() {
    return new String("hello");
    // return "hello";
}

public static void main(String[] args) {
    int n = 1000000000;

    long before1 = System.nanoTime();

    for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
        Message m = new Message()
                .email(getString())
                .assignee(getString())
                .conversationId(getString())
                .escalationEmail(getString())
                .subject(getString())
                .userId(getString());
    }

    long after1 = System.nanoTime();

    long before2 = System.nanoTime();

    for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
        Message m = Message.createNew()
                .email(getString())
                .assignee(getString())
                .conversationId(getString())
                .escalationEmail(getString())
                .subject(getString())
                .userId(getString())
                .create();
    }

    long after2 = System.nanoTime();



    System.out.println("no builder  : " + (after1 - before1)/1000000000.0);
    System.out.println("with builder: " + (after2 - before2)/1000000000.0);
}


}

如果字符串参数不是新对象，但我发现差异很明显(构建器更快)，但都是一样的(参见 getString 中的注释代码)

在我想象的更现实的场景中，当所有字符串都是新对象时，差异可以忽略不计，并且 JVM 启动会导致第一个稍微慢一点(我尝试了两种方式)。

有了“新字符串”，代码也慢了好几倍(我不得不减少 n)，这可能表明正在对“新消息”进行一些优化，但不是“新字符串”。

Answer 1

是的，HotSpot JIT 可以消除本地上下文中的冗余分配。

此优化由 Escape Analysis 提供自 JDK 6u23 起启用。它经常与栈上分配相混淆，但实际上它更强大，因为它不仅允许在栈上分配对象，而且通过用进一步分配的变量(标量替换)替换对象字段来完全消除分配优化。

优化由 -XX:+EliminateAllocations JVM 选项控制，默认情况下打开。

---

由于分配消除优化，创建 Message 对象的两个示例都以相同的方式有效工作。他们不分配中间对象；只是最后一个。

您的基准测试显示误导性结果，因为它收集了许多 common pitfalls微基准测试:

• 它将多个基准合并到一个方法中；
• 它测量一个OSR stub而不是最终的编译版本；
• 它不进行预热迭代；
• 它不消耗结果等。

让我们用 JMH 正确测量它.作为奖励，JMH 具有分配分析器 (-prof gc)，它显示每次迭代实际分配了多少字节。我添加了第三个测试，该测试在禁用 EliminateAllocations 优化的情况下运行以显示差异。

package bench;

import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.*;

@State(Scope.Benchmark)
public class MessageBench {

    @Benchmark
    public Message builder() {
        return Message.createNew()
                .email(getString())
                .assignee(getString())
                .conversationId(getString())
                .escalationEmail(getString())
                .subject(getString())
                .userId(getString())
                .create();
    }

    @Benchmark
    public Message immutable() {
        return new Message()
                .email(getString())
                .assignee(getString())
                .conversationId(getString())
                .escalationEmail(getString())
                .subject(getString())
                .userId(getString());
    }

    @Benchmark
    @Fork(jvmArgs = "-XX:-EliminateAllocations")
    public Message immutableNoOpt() {
        return new Message()
                .email(getString())
                .assignee(getString())
                .conversationId(getString())
                .escalationEmail(getString())
                .subject(getString())
                .userId(getString());
    }

    private String getString() {
        return "hello";
    }
}

这是结果。 builder 和 immutable 性能相同，每次迭代仅分配 40 个字节(恰好是一个 Message 对象的大小)。

Benchmark                                        Mode  Cnt     Score     Error   Units
MessageBench.builder                             avgt   10     6,232 ±   0,111   ns/op
MessageBench.immutable                           avgt   10     6,213 ±   0,087   ns/op
MessageBench.immutableNoOpt                      avgt   10    41,660 ±   2,466   ns/op

MessageBench.builder:·gc.alloc.rate.norm         avgt   10    40,000 ±   0,001    B/op
MessageBench.immutable:·gc.alloc.rate.norm       avgt   10    40,000 ±   0,001    B/op
MessageBench.immutableNoOpt:·gc.alloc.rate.norm  avgt   10   280,000 ±   0,001    B/op