RFR(M): 8006683: Add WhiteBox API to testing of compiler

Tue Feb 12 14:49:48 PST 2013

Yes.

Vladimir

On 2/12/13 2:25 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> May I consider that "official" review is passed and I can ask Vladimir
> Ivanov to push this patch?
>
> Best regards,
> Igor Ignatyev
>
> On 02/09/2013 12:46 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> testing finished:
>>    - IsMethodCompilableTest failed on *-i586-*-c1 as expected
>> (JDK-8007270)
>>    - on other platforms all tests passed
>>    - there were successful tests macosx_x64-*-c1-compiler/whitebox, it
>> seems this is due to jprt's problem. because any *_x64 ignore '-client',
>> so run tests on macosx_x64 with this flag and call them
>> 'macosx_x64-*-c1-*' is incorrect and misleads.
>>
>> PS jprt was started with "-rtests '*-*-*-compiler/whitebox' -et
>> '.*Emb-.*' -et '.*_armv6-.*' -qac 100"
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Ignatyev
>>
>> On 02/08/2013 12:22 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Good. Please, do JPRT test run with -rtests compiler/whitebox
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 2/7/13 12:11 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>> I have updated the patch with removing unnecessary "-cp ./"
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/8006683/webrev.02/
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Igor Ignatyev
>>>>
>>>> On 02/06/2013 11:01 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>> On 2/6/13 10:56 AM, Mikael Gerdin wrote:
>>>>>> Vladimir,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013-02-06 17:41, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>> Igor, Mikael explained it. I think you need to wait when his are
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>> pushed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's ok with you I'd rather wait for the NMT WhiteBox additions
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Igor's compiler additions to the API to get pushed and propagate
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> the repos and then merge those changes into mine and push my changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is fine with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Mikael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/6/13 12:52 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why you need to pass -J-XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>>>>>>>>> -J-XX:+WhiteBoxAPI
>>>>>>>>> to javac (@compile)? javac usually uses Client VM so you will test
>>>>>>>>> different VM and it will be hard to diagnose it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because these flags are needed for adding wb.jar to classpath, w/o
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> javac could not find sun.hotspot.WhiteBox:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> test/compiler/whitebox/MakeMethodNotCompilableTest.java:38: error:
>>>>>>>> cannot access WhiteBox
>>>>>>>>          if (!WHITE_BOX.isMethodCompilable(METHOD)) {
>>>>>>>>                        ^
>>>>>>>>    class file for sun.hotspot.WhiteBox not found
>>>>>>>> 1 error
>>>>>>>> result: Failed. Compilation failed: Compilation failed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SetDontInlineMethodTest.java also have additional "-cp ./". Why?
>>>>>>>> my oversight
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Igor Ignatyev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2013 06:17 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The directories and files layout is good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why you need to pass -J-XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>>>>>>>>> -J-XX:+WhiteBoxAPI
>>>>>>>>> to javac (@compile)? javac usually uses Client VM so you will test
>>>>>>>>> different VM and it will be hard to diagnose it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SetDontInlineMethodTest.java also have additional "-cp ./". Why?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/13 9:37 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. added new functions:
>>>>>>>>>>      public native void    makeMethodNotCompilable(Method
>>>>>>>>>> method);
>>>>>>>>>>      public native int     getMethodCompilationLevel(Method
>>>>>>>>>> method);
>>>>>>>>>> 2. tests were moved to separate files in compiler/whitebox
>>>>>>>>>> directory
>>>>>>>>>> 3. removed redundant '(value ? JNI_TRUE : JNI_FALSE)'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/8006683/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PS compiler/whitebox/IsMethodCompilableTest fails due to
>>>>>>>>>> JDK-8007270
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2013 04:28 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/13 4:12 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, thank you for your feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you also add call to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compilation level code->comp_level() of compiled code?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Add this is not a problem, but then we will need to have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of
>>>>>>>>>>>> enum
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'CompLevel' in java code. Or you suggest to return int?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just int. And may be not for you current test but in one of
>>>>>>>>>>> next to
>>>>>>>>>>> check that we have expected comp_level (could be difficult with
>>>>>>>>>>> tiered).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we plan to add more WB tests later as separate *.java tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep only one  CompilerWhiteBoxTest.java and update it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's better to write tests as separates file,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> allow not care about state of counters after previous tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you then create subdir test/compiler/whitebox for this and
>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>> WB tests?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> During testing of my changes I have found strange behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler:
>>>>>>>>>>>> C1 continues compilation of method even after reaching of
>>>>>>>>>>>> recompilation's limit (PerMethodRecompilationCutoff). For C2
>>>>>>>>>>>> (w/o
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tiered) all is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this behavior correct? Or this is a bug?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PS Cause of this behavior is calling of 'Method::
>>>>>>>>>>>> set_not_compilable()'
>>>>>>>>>>>> with argument 'CompLevel_full_optimization' from
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'MethodData::inc_decompile_count()', so for C1 the method is
>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> compilable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> File bug. Recently we separated method not-compilable state
>>>>>>>>>>> for C1
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> C2, and it is side effect (missed this place).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Igor Ignatyev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2013 11:53 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Mikael to give different name to test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calls to get info in VM looks fine to me. Could you also add
>>>>>>>>>>>>> call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compilation level code->comp_level() of compiled code?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we plan to add more WB tests later as separate *.java tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep only one  CompilerWhiteBoxTest.java and update it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/13 12:31 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. added new functions to WhiteBox:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    public native void    deoptimizeAll();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    public native boolean isMethodCompiled(Method method);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    public native boolean isMethodCompilable(Method method);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    public native boolean isMethodQueuedForCompilation(Method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    public native int     deoptimizeMethod(Method method);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    public native boolean setDontInlineMethod(Method method,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    public native int     getCompileQueuesSize();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. added test 'test/compiler/WBApiTest.java' which exercises
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. added result type to macro WB_METHOD_DECLARE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8006683/webrev.00/