HashCode值是否等同地址值

我们一般都是说hashcode就是地址值。于是就想看看到底是不是地址值。
打开JDK1.8的源码

我们一般获取hashcode有2种方式，

• 直接获取调用对象的hashCode
• System.identityHashCode

identityHashCode

无论给定对象的类是否覆盖hashCode()，都为给定对象返回与默认方法hashCode()返回的哈希码相同的哈希码。 空引用null的哈希码为零。

System.identityHashCode(object);

identityHashCode与hashCode的联系

Object的hashCode方法也是返回对象的哈希码值。
区别就是hashCode方法可以重写。
hashCode不进行重写，跟System.identityHashCode是一样的效果。
如果重写了hashCode，2者就不一样了。
System.identityHashCode是静态方法，2者都是native方法。
实际上跟调用的Object的hashCode方法一样。

查看native方法

查看native方法

public static native int identityHashCode(Object x);
public native int hashCode();

identityHashCode

JNIEXPORT jint JNICALL
Java_java_lang_System_identityHashCode(JNIEnv *env, jobject this, jobject x)
{
    return JVM_IHashCode(env, x);
}

hashcode

static JNINativeMethod methods[] = {
    {"hashCode",    "()I",                    (void *)&JVM_IHashCode},
    {"wait",        "(J)V",                   (void *)&JVM_MonitorWait},
    {"notify",      "()V",                    (void *)&JVM_MonitorNotify},
    {"notifyAll",   "()V",                    (void *)&JVM_MonitorNotifyAll},
    {"clone",       "()Ljava/lang/Object;",   (void *)&JVM_Clone},
};

发现都是用的JVM_IHashCode。直接看JVM_IHashCode。

JVM_IHashCode

JVM_ENTRY(jint, JVM_IHashCode(JNIEnv* env, jobject handle))
  JVMWrapper("JVM_IHashCode");
  // as implemented in the classic virtual machine; return 0 if object is NULL
  return handle == NULL ? 0 : ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode (THREAD, JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(handle)) ;
JVM_END

ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode (THREAD, JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(handle))
真正计算hashCode的值是ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode

ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode

intptr_t ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode (Thread * Self, oop obj) {
  if (UseBiasedLocking) {
    // NOTE: many places throughout the JVM do not expect a safepoint
    // to be taken here, in particular most operations on perm gen
    // objects. However, we only ever bias Java instances and all of
    // the call sites of identity_hash that might revoke biases have
    // been checked to make sure they can handle a safepoint. The
    // added check of the bias pattern is to avoid useless calls to
    // thread-local storage.
    if (obj->mark()->has_bias_pattern()) {
      // Box and unbox the raw reference just in case we cause a STW safepoint.
      Handle hobj (Self, obj) ;
      // Relaxing assertion for bug 6320749.
      assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
              !SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint(),
             "biases should not be seen by VM thread here");
      BiasedLocking::revoke_and_rebias(hobj, false, JavaThread::current());
      obj = hobj() ;
      assert(!obj->mark()->has_bias_pattern(), "biases should be revoked by now");
    }
  }

  // hashCode() is a heap mutator ...
  // Relaxing assertion for bug 6320749.
  assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
          !SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint(), "invariant") ;
  assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
          Self->is_Java_thread() , "invariant") ;
  assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
         ((JavaThread *)Self)->thread_state() != _thread_blocked, "invariant") ;

  ObjectMonitor* monitor = NULL;
  markOop temp, test;
  intptr_t hash;
  markOop mark = ReadStableMark (obj);

  // object should remain ineligible for biased locking
  assert (!mark->has_bias_pattern(), "invariant") ;

  if (mark->is_neutral()) {
    hash = mark->hash();              // this is a normal header
    if (hash) {                       // if it has hash, just return it
      //对象头中存在hashcode，直接返回
      return hash;
    }
    //生成一个新的hashcode
    hash = get_next_hash(Self, obj);  // allocate a new hash code
    temp = mark->copy_set_hash(hash); // merge the hash code into header
    // use (machine word version) atomic operation to install the hash
    test = (markOop) Atomic::cmpxchg_ptr(temp, obj->mark_addr(), mark);
    if (test == mark) {
      return hash;
    }
    // If atomic operation failed, we must inflate the header
    // into heavy weight monitor. We could add more code here
    // for fast path, but it does not worth the complexity.
  } else if (mark->has_monitor()) {
    monitor = mark->monitor();
    temp = monitor->header();
    assert (temp->is_neutral(), "invariant") ;
    hash = temp->hash();
    if (hash) {
      return hash;
    }
    // Skip to the following code to reduce code size
  } else if (Self->is_lock_owned((address)mark->locker())) {
    temp = mark->displaced_mark_helper(); // this is a lightweight monitor owned
    assert (temp->is_neutral(), "invariant") ;
    hash = temp->hash();              // by current thread, check if the displaced
    if (hash) {                       // header contains hash code
      return hash;
    }
    // WARNING:
    //   The displaced header is strictly immutable.
    // It can NOT be changed in ANY cases. So we have
    // to inflate the header into heavyweight monitor
    // even the current thread owns the lock. The reason
    // is the BasicLock (stack slot) will be asynchronously
    // read by other threads during the inflate() function.
    // Any change to stack may not propagate to other threads
    // correctly.
  }

  // Inflate the monitor to set hash code
  monitor = ObjectSynchronizer::inflate(Self, obj);
  // Load displaced header and check it has hash code
  mark = monitor->header();
  assert (mark->is_neutral(), "invariant") ;
  hash = mark->hash();
  if (hash == 0) {
    hash = get_next_hash(Self, obj);
    temp = mark->copy_set_hash(hash); // merge hash code into header
    assert (temp->is_neutral(), "invariant") ;
    test = (markOop) Atomic::cmpxchg_ptr(temp, monitor, mark);
    if (test != mark) {
      // The only update to the header in the monitor (outside GC)
      // is install the hash code. If someone add new usage of
      // displaced header, please update this code
      hash = test->hash();
      assert (test->is_neutral(), "invariant") ;
      assert (hash != 0, "Trivial unexpected object/monitor header usage.");
    }
  }
  // We finally get the hash
  return hash;
}

发现hash都是通过这个get_next_hash方法生成的，在看get_next_hash方法

get_next_hash

// hashCode() generation :
//
// Possibilities:
// * MD5Digest of {obj,stwRandom}
// * CRC32 of {obj,stwRandom} or any linear-feedback shift register function.
// * A DES- or AES-style SBox[] mechanism
// * One of the Phi-based schemes, such as:
//   2654435761 = 2^32 * Phi (golden ratio)
//   HashCodeValue = ((uintptr_t(obj) >> 3) * 2654435761) ^ GVars.stwRandom ;
// * A variation of Marsaglia's shift-xor RNG scheme.
// * (obj ^ stwRandom) is appealing, but can result
//   in undesirable regularity in the hashCode values of adjacent objects
//   (objects allocated back-to-back, in particular).  This could potentially
//   result in hashtable collisions and reduced hashtable efficiency.
//   There are simple ways to "diffuse" the middle address bits over the
//   generated hashCode values:
//
static inline intptr_t get_next_hash(Thread * Self, oop obj) {
  intptr_t value = 0 ;
  if (hashCode == 0) {
     // This form uses an unguarded global Park-Miller RNG,
     // so it's possible for two threads to race and generate the same RNG.
     // On MP system we'll have lots of RW access to a global, so the
     // mechanism induces lots of coherency traffic.
     value = os::random() ;
  } else
  if (hashCode == 1) {
     // This variation has the property of being stable (idempotent)
     // between STW operations.  This can be useful in some of the 1-0
     // synchronization schemes.
     intptr_t addrBits = cast_from_oop<intptr_t>(obj) >> 3 ;
     value = addrBits ^ (addrBits >> 5) ^ GVars.stwRandom ;
  } else
  if (hashCode == 2) {
     value = 1 ;            // for sensitivity testing
  } else
  if (hashCode == 3) {
     value = ++GVars.hcSequence ;
  } else
  if (hashCode == 4) {
     value = cast_from_oop<intptr_t>(obj) ;
  } else {
     // Marsaglia's xor-shift scheme with thread-specific state
     // This is probably the best overall implementation -- we'll
     // likely make this the default in future releases.
     unsigned t = Self->_hashStateX ;
     t ^= (t << 11) ;
     Self->_hashStateX = Self->_hashStateY ;
     Self->_hashStateY = Self->_hashStateZ ;
     Self->_hashStateZ = Self->_hashStateW ;
     unsigned v = Self->_hashStateW ;
     v = (v ^ (v >> 19)) ^ (t ^ (t >> 8)) ;
     Self->_hashStateW = v ;
     value = v ;
  }

  value &= markOopDesc::hash_mask;
  if (value == 0) value = 0xBAD ;
  assert (value != markOopDesc::no_hash, "invariant") ;
  TEVENT (hashCode: GENERATE) ;
  return value;
}

都说hashcode默认是5.这个默认值的来源：

  product(intx, hashCode, 5,                                                \
          "(Unstable) select hashCode generation algorithm")    

默认是5，那走get_next_hash的else分支代码。
里面使用到了3个值_hashStateX、_hashStateY、_hashStateZ

  // thread-specific hashCode stream generator state - Marsaglia shift-xor form
  _hashStateX = os::random() ;
  _hashStateY = 842502087 ;
  _hashStateZ = 0x8767 ;    // (int)(3579807591LL & 0xffff) ;
  _hashStateW = 273326509 ;

一个随机数（_hashStateX ）+三个确定值（_hashStateY 、_hashStateZ 、_hashStateW ），运用Marsaglia’s xorshift scheme随机数算法得到的一个随机数。

通过资料查找，弗罗里达州立大学一位叫做George Marsaglia的老师发表了一篇使用位移以及异或运算生成随机数的方法。xorshift 算法由此得来。

简单实现如下：

  uint32_t t = x ^ (x << 11);
    x = y; y = z; z = w;
    return w = w ^ (w >> 19) ^ t ^ (t >> 8);

看到此处，哦谢特，这特么怎么是这个随机数了。说好的地址值呢？
在看下1、2、3、4

hashCode == 0 看注释，也是随机数
hashCode == 1 将对象的内存地址，做移位运算后与一个随机数进行异或得到结果。
hashCode == 2 返回固定的1
hashCode == 3 返回一个自增序列的当前值
hashCode == 4 返回当前对象的内存地址

验证一下，别的不好验证，但是这hashCode == 2 的情况是挺好验证的。
编写一个测试代码Test,使用idea配置一下Test的VM，
-XX:hashCode=2

执行一下测试代码Test

public class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println(System.identityHashCode(new Object()));
    }
}

打印结果hashcode值为1.
验证成功了。

顺便验证一下hashCode == 3的情况。
发现是递增的序列。也是ok的.

其他的都跟随机数有关，没啥可验证必要。

此时想要hashcode为真正的地址，改一下，-XX:hashCode=4.
这下就是真正的hashcode等于地址值了。

结论

默认的hashcode不是地址值，是个随机数，骗了我好久。
hashcode为1地址值有关做了一次计算。
hashcode为4就是地址值本身。
其他的跟地址值都没关系。