CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javaoptimizationmicro-optimization
job
job

Reputation: 9253

Is it faster to access final local variables than class variables in Java?

I've been looking at at some of the java primitive collections (trove, fastutil, hppc) and I've noticed a pattern that class variables are sometimes declared as final local variables. For example:

public void forEach(IntIntProcedure p) {
    final boolean[] used = this.used;
    final int[] key = this.key;
    final int[] value = this.value;
    for (int i = 0; i < used.length; i++) {
        if (used[i]) {
          p.apply(key[i],value[i]);
        }
    }
}

I've done some benchmarking, and it appears that it is slightly faster when doing this, but why is this the case? I'm trying to understand what Java would do differently if the first three lines of the function were commented out.

Note: This seems similiar to this question, but that was for c++ and doesn't address why they are declared final.

Upvotes: 15

Views: 6946

Answers (5)

irreputable
irreputable

Reputation: 45433

Such simple optimizations are already included in JVM runtime. If JVM does naive access to instance variables, our Java applications will be turtle slow.

Such manual tuning probably worthwhile for simpler JVMs though, e.g. Android.

Upvotes: -1

jtahlborn
jtahlborn

Reputation: 53674

it tells the runtime (jit) that in the context of that method call, those 3 values will never change, so the runtime does not need to continually load the values from the member variable. this may give a slight speed improvement.

of course, as the jit gets smarter and can figure out these things on its own, these conventions become less useful.

note, i didn't make it clear that the speedup is more from using a local variable than the final part.

Upvotes: 1

Tomasz Nurkiewicz
Tomasz Nurkiewicz

Reputation: 340708

Accessing local variable or parameter is a single step operation: take a variable located at offset N on the stack. If you function has 2 arguments (simplified):

  • N = 0 - this
  • N = 1 - first argument
  • N = 2 - second argument
  • N = 3 - first local variable
  • N = 4 - second local variable
  • ...

So when you access local variable, you have one memory access at fixed offset (N is known at compilation time). This is the bytecode for accessing first method argument (int):

iload 1  //N = 1

However when you access field, you are actually performing an extra step. First you are reading "local variable" this just to determine the current object address. Then you are loading a field (getfield) which has a fixed offset from this. So you perform two memory operations instead of one (or one extra). Bytecode:

aload 0  //N = 0: this reference
getfield total I  //int total

So technically accessing local variables and parameters is faster than object fields. In practice, many other factors may affect performance (including various levels of CPU cache and JVM optimizations).

final is a different story. It is basically a hint for the compiler/JIT that this reference won't change so it can make some heavier optimizations. But this is much harder to track down, as a rule of thumb use final whenever possible.

Upvotes: 29

antlersoft
antlersoft

Reputation: 14786

In the generated VM opcodes local variables are entries on the operand stack while field references must be moved to the stack via an instruction that retrieves the value through the object reference. I imagine the JIT can make the stack references register references more easily.

Upvotes: 1

Mike Samuel
Mike Samuel

Reputation: 120486

The final keyword is a red herring here. The performance difference comes because they are saying two different things.

public void forEach(IntIntProcedure p) {
  final boolean[] used = this.used;
  for (int i = 0; i < used.length; i++) {
    ...
  }
}

is saying, "fetch a boolean array, and for each element of that array do something."

Without final boolean[] used, the function is saying "while the index is less than the length of the current value of the used field of the current object, fetch the current value of the used field of the current object and do something with the element at index i."

The JIT might have a much easier time proving loop bound invariants to eliminate excess bound checks and so on because it can much more easily determine what would cause the value of used to change. Even ignoring multiple threads, if p.apply could change the value of used then the JIT can't eliminate bounds checks or do other useful optimizations.

Upvotes: 7

Related Questions