ADDITIONAL SYSTEM INFORMATION :
# Java version
java 23.0.1 2024-10-15
java 21.0.5 2024-10-15 LTS
java 17.0.12 2024-07-16 LTS

# Operating system details
$ cat /etc/*release
DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
DISTRIB_RELEASE=20.04
DISTRIB_CODENAME=focal
DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS"
NAME="Ubuntu"
VERSION="20.04.6 LTS (Focal Fossa)"
ID=ubuntu
ID_LIKE=debian
PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS"
VERSION_ID="20.04"
HOME_URL="https://www.ubuntu.com/"
SUPPORT_URL="https://help.ubuntu.com/"
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/"
PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/privacy-policy"
VERSION_CODENAME=focal
UBUNTU_CODENAME=focal

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
Missed dead code elimination in C1/C2 compiler. The issue disappeared
when some irrelevant code is added, but '-XX:TieredStopAtLevel=3'
remains slow. This could also be potentially related to JIT profiling.

STEPS TO FOLLOW TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM :
The following steps shows how to reproduce the bug on a Ubuntu Linux
environment with on Java 21.0.5 and the corresponding results. (It can also
be reproduce on macOS-ARM64)

```
Compile the source code:
javac Test1.java Test2.java

Running with if statement:
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=1 Test1 0.04s user 0.03s system 100% cpu 0.075 total
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=2 Test1 0.06s user 0.02s system 101% cpu 0.078 total
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=3 Test1 4.78s user 0.03s system 100% cpu 4.805 total
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=4 Test1 4.53s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 4.569 total
Running without if statement:
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=1 Test2 4.71s user 0.04s system 100% cpu 4.748 total
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=2 Test2 4.79s user 0.03s system 100% cpu 4.820 total
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=3 Test2 4.80s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 4.848 total
java -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=4 Test2 4.69s user 0.04s system 100% cpu 4.723 total
```

ACTUAL -
The `test` method always return `a2`, which is never modified inside
the method body. The method can be optimized to directly return `a2`.
C1 with an extra irrelevant if statement seems to be able do this
optimization while all the other configurations fail. It is
interesting to see how that if statement affects the compiler
behavior. Besides, `-XX:TieredStopAtLevel=3` is slow regardless of the
presence of the if statement. To the best of my knowledge, this option
is just C1 with full profiling, so this issue could also be related to
JIT profiling.

---------- BEGIN SOURCE ----------
# Test1.java

```java
public class Test1 {
    public static double test(final double a1, final double b1, final double a2, final double b2) {
        final double x = Double.longBitsToDouble(
                Double.doubleToRawLongBits((double) a1) & (long) (8411500938693120034L << -173714142));
        final double y = (double) ((x + b1) / (((x * (b1 % x)) % (x - a1)) - (b1 - x)));
        // Adding this if statement makes C1 fast
        if (Double.isNaN(a1)) {
            System.out.println("a1 is NaN");
        }
        return (double) a2;
    }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int N = 10000000;
        double[] res = new double[N];
        for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
            res[i] = test((double) 'a', 100, 10L, 100.0d);
        }
    }
}
```

# Test2.java

```java
public class Test2 {
    public static double test(final double a1, final double b1, final double a2, final double b2) {
        final double x = Double.longBitsToDouble(
                Double.doubleToRawLongBits((double) a1) & (long) (8411500938693120034L << -173714142));
        final double y = (double) ((x + b1) / (((x * (b1 % x)) % (x - a1)) - (b1 - x)));
        return (double) a2;
    }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int N = 10000000;
        double[] res = new double[N];
        for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
            res[i] = test((double) 'a', 100, 10L, 100.0d);
        }
    }
}

```
---------- END SOURCE ----------

CUSTOMER SUBMITTED WORKAROUND :
No workaround for HotSpot. The issue is not reproduced in GraalVM.

FREQUENCY : always