From bob.vandette at oracle.com Tue Sep 18 13:17:46 2018 From: bob.vandette at oracle.com (Bob Vandette) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:17:46 -0400 Subject: RFR: 8209093 - JEP 340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two In-Reply-To: References: <285AC12C-3A77-41FB-A756-ED15354B61FE@oracle.com> Message-ID: <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> I only did some basic testing of the hard-float abi. Bell SW has offered to do more extensive testing as part of this JEP. I have no way of knowing if any of the other profiles are being used but I would think it?s worth keeping them in the event that someone wants to try to build/test these other configurations. The goal of this JEP is to eliminate the arm64 port and not cause any other changes in behavior. Bob. > On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:53 PM, David Holmes wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > On 18/09/2018 2:20 AM, Bob Vandette wrote: >> Please review the changes related to JEP 340 which remove the second 64-bit ARM port >> from the JDK. >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bobv/8209093/webrev.01 >> I?ve testing building the remaining 32 and 64 bit ARM ports including the minimal, client and server VMs. >> I?ve run specJVM98 on the three 32-bit ARM VMs. > > Did you test all the ARM related abi-profiles? It seems to me they were only for Oracle's ARM32 port and may have never been used otherwise. I would have expected all that stuff to be removed. > > Cheers, > David > >> I also verified that Linux x64 builds. >> Bob. From simon at cjnash.com Tue Sep 18 17:14:20 2018 From: simon at cjnash.com (Simon Nash) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:14:20 +0100 Subject: RFR: 8209093 - JEP 340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two In-Reply-To: <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> References: <285AC12C-3A77-41FB-A756-ED15354B61FE@oracle.com> <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5BA1326C.7040708@cjnash.com> On 18/09/2018 14:17, Bob Vandette wrote: > I only did some basic testing of the hard-float abi. Bell SW has offered to do more extensive testing > as part of this JEP. > > I have no way of knowing if any of the other profiles are being used but I would think it?s > worth keeping them in the event that someone wants to try to build/test these other configurations. > I am using the abi profiles arm-vfp-hflt and arm-sflt. So far I have only built jdk9u with these profiles. It would be a serious problem for me if these profiles don't continue to work on later JDK versions. Simon > The goal of this JEP is to eliminate the arm64 port and not cause any other changes in behavior. > > Bob. > > >> On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:53 PM, David Holmes wrote: >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> On 18/09/2018 2:20 AM, Bob Vandette wrote: >>> Please review the changes related to JEP 340 which remove the second 64-bit ARM port >>> from the JDK. >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bobv/8209093/webrev.01 >>> I?ve testing building the remaining 32 and 64 bit ARM ports including the minimal, client and server VMs. >>> I?ve run specJVM98 on the three 32-bit ARM VMs. >> Did you test all the ARM related abi-profiles? It seems to me they were only for Oracle's ARM32 port and may have never been used otherwise. I would have expected all that stuff to be removed. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >>> I also verified that Linux x64 builds. >>> Bob. > > From david.holmes at oracle.com Wed Sep 19 06:44:12 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:44:12 +1000 Subject: RFR: 8209093 - JEP 340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two In-Reply-To: <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> References: <285AC12C-3A77-41FB-A756-ED15354B61FE@oracle.com> <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Bob, On 18/09/2018 11:17 PM, Bob Vandette wrote: > I only did some basic testing of the hard-float abi. Bell SW has offered to do more extensive testing > as part of this JEP. > > I have no way of knowing if any of the other profiles are being used but I would think it?s > worth keeping them in the event that someone wants to try to build/test these other configurations. > > The goal of this JEP is to eliminate the arm64 port and not cause any other changes in behavior. Sorry I was under the mistaken impression that all of the Oracle ARM port was being removed, but it is only the 64-bit part. That said it would concern me greatly if people are still building for anything older than ARMv7 with MP support! The work I'm doing to always act as-if MP is not only potentially inefficient on a uniprocessor, but for ARM variants without MP support, potentially it won't even run if instructions don't exist. I need to look into this further. Thanks, David > Bob. > > >> On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:53 PM, David Holmes wrote: >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> On 18/09/2018 2:20 AM, Bob Vandette wrote: >>> Please review the changes related to JEP 340 which remove the second 64-bit ARM port >>> from the JDK. >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bobv/8209093/webrev.01 >>> I?ve testing building the remaining 32 and 64 bit ARM ports including the minimal, client and server VMs. >>> I?ve run specJVM98 on the three 32-bit ARM VMs. >> >> Did you test all the ARM related abi-profiles? It seems to me they were only for Oracle's ARM32 port and may have never been used otherwise. I would have expected all that stuff to be removed. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >>> I also verified that Linux x64 builds. >>> Bob. > From akashche at redhat.com Thu Sep 20 10:16:01 2018 From: akashche at redhat.com (Alex Kashchenko) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:16:01 +0100 Subject: RFR: 8209093 - JEP 340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two In-Reply-To: <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> References: <285AC12C-3A77-41FB-A756-ED15354B61FE@oracle.com> <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> Message-ID: <3bb9f433-b350-fa37-2cca-90ccde438eb2@redhat.com> Hi, On 09/18/2018 02:17 PM, Bob Vandette wrote: > I only did some basic testing of the hard-float abi. Bell SW has offered to do more extensive testing > as part of this JEP. > > I have no way of knowing if any of the other profiles are being used but I would think it?s > worth keeping them in the event that someone wants to try to build/test these other configurations. > > The goal of this JEP is to eliminate the arm64 port and not cause any other changes in behavior. Just FYI, I've run tests before [1] and after the patch [2]. Tier1 tests results are the same, jcstress and specjvm results are close. > > [...] > [1] https://openjdk-aarch32.osci.io/results/manual/jdk_jdk_74dde8b66b7f/ [2] https://openjdk-aarch32.osci.io/results/manual/jdk_jdk_74dde8b66b7f_jep340/ -- -Alex From simon at cjnash.com Thu Sep 20 11:48:48 2018 From: simon at cjnash.com (Simon Nash) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:48:48 +0100 Subject: RFR: 8209093 - JEP 340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two In-Reply-To: References: <285AC12C-3A77-41FB-A756-ED15354B61FE@oracle.com> <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5BA38920.8020203@cjnash.com> On 19/09/2018 07:44, David Holmes wrote: > Hi Bob, > > On 18/09/2018 11:17 PM, Bob Vandette wrote: >> I only did some basic testing of the hard-float abi. Bell SW has >> offered to do more extensive testing >> as part of this JEP. >> >> I have no way of knowing if any of the other profiles are being used >> but I would think it?s >> worth keeping them in the event that someone wants to try to >> build/test these other configurations. >> >> The goal of this JEP is to eliminate the arm64 port and not cause any >> other changes in behavior. > > Sorry I was under the mistaken impression that all of the Oracle ARM > port was being removed, but it is only the 64-bit part. > > That said it would concern me greatly if people are still building for > anything older than ARMv7 with MP support! The work I'm doing to always > act as-if MP is not only potentially inefficient on a uniprocessor, but > for ARM variants without MP support, potentially it won't even run if > instructions don't exist. I need to look into this further. > > Thanks, > David > David, My build for arm-sflt needs to run on ARMv5 uniprocessor maschines and my build for arm-vfp-hflt needs to run on ARMv7 uniprocessor machines. Is the work you are doing that could cause problems with this included in JDK11 or just JDK12? Simon >> Bob. >> >> >>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:53 PM, David Holmes >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bob, >>> >>> On 18/09/2018 2:20 AM, Bob Vandette wrote: >>>> Please review the changes related to JEP 340 which remove the second >>>> 64-bit ARM port >>>> from the JDK. >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bobv/8209093/webrev.01 >>>> I?ve testing building the remaining 32 and 64 bit ARM ports >>>> including the minimal, client and server VMs. >>>> I?ve run specJVM98 on the three 32-bit ARM VMs. >>> >>> Did you test all the ARM related abi-profiles? It seems to me they >>> were only for Oracle's ARM32 port and may have never been used >>> otherwise. I would have expected all that stuff to be removed. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David >>> >>>> I also verified that Linux x64 builds. >>>> Bob. >> > From david.holmes at oracle.com Fri Sep 21 02:34:19 2018 From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: RFR: 8209093 - JEP 340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two In-Reply-To: <5BA38920.8020203@cjnash.com> References: <285AC12C-3A77-41FB-A756-ED15354B61FE@oracle.com> <6C784061-6256-4D40-BFB3-CA1ABB7F29EB@oracle.com> <5BA38920.8020203@cjnash.com> Message-ID: Hi Simon, On 20/09/2018 7:48 AM, Simon Nash wrote: > On 19/09/2018 07:44, David Holmes wrote: >> Hi Bob, >> >> On 18/09/2018 11:17 PM, Bob Vandette wrote: >>> I only did some basic testing of the hard-float abi.? Bell SW has >>> offered to do more extensive testing >>> as part of this JEP. >>> >>> I have no way of knowing if any of the other profiles are being used >>> but I would think it?s >>> worth keeping them in the event that someone wants to try to >>> build/test these other configurations. >>> >>> The goal of this JEP is to eliminate the arm64 port and not cause any >>> other changes in behavior. >> >> Sorry I was under the mistaken impression that all of the Oracle ARM >> port was being removed, but it is only the 64-bit part. >> >> That said it would concern me greatly if people are still building for >> anything older than ARMv7 with MP support! The work I'm doing to >> always act as-if MP is not only potentially inefficient on a >> uniprocessor, but for ARM variants without MP support, potentially it >> won't even run if instructions don't exist. I need to look into this >> further. >> >> Thanks, >> David >> > David, > My build for arm-sflt needs to run on ARMv5 uniprocessor maschines and > my build for arm-vfp-hflt needs to run on ARMv7 uniprocessor machines. > Is the work you are doing that could cause problems with this included > in JDK11 or just JDK12? This is for JDK 12. Of course the intent is to not cause problems for anyone. The changes aim at simplifying the code whilst marginally improving performance in the common case of a multi-processor system, at the expense of potentially decreasing performance for uniprocessors. Though as has been pointed out in my review thread, the existing use of AssumeMP (default true) will be causing the same performance changes and for spinlocks my changes will improve things for uniprocessors. My area of concern is where instructions issued for the MP case may not be valid on specific architectures. For example pldw is only available on ARMv7 with multi-processor extensions. I need to be sure, for example, only supported DMB/DSB variants are issued on ARMv5. Thanks, David > Simon > >>> Bob. >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:53 PM, David Holmes >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Bob, >>>> >>>> On 18/09/2018 2:20 AM, Bob Vandette wrote: >>>>> Please review the changes related to JEP 340 which remove the >>>>> second 64-bit ARM port >>>>> from the JDK. >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bobv/8209093/webrev.01 >>>>> I?ve testing building the remaining 32 and 64 bit ARM ports >>>>> including the minimal, client and server VMs. >>>>> I?ve run specJVM98 on the three 32-bit ARM VMs. >>>> >>>> Did you test all the ARM related abi-profiles? It seems to me they >>>> were only for Oracle's ARM32 port and may have never been used >>>> otherwise. I would have expected all that stuff to be removed. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> David >>>> >>>>> I also verified that Linux x64 builds. >>>>> Bob. >>> >> > From andrey.petushkov at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 16:50:40 2018 From: andrey.petushkov at gmail.com (Andrey Petushkov) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:50:40 +0300 Subject: RFR: aarch32-jdk11 Message-ID: Dear Ed, All, Please find here http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetushkov/aarch32jdk11%2b28/ jdk11 version of aarch32 port Tested with hotspot-jtreg. A few new tests failed, will look closer. Some other tests are known to be inapplicable Will test with rest of jtreg, gtest and other respective test suites Have a nice day! Andrey