[9] RFR(S): 8021775: compiler/8009761/Test8009761.java "Failed: init recursive calls: 51. After deopt 50"

[Igor Ignatyev]

Hi Tobias,

Since now the test uses JMX, you have to add it into needs_compact3 
group in 'test/TEST.groups'.

Igor

On 05/28/2014 01:31 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> thanks for the feedback.
>
> On 16.05.2014 18:00, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>
>> On May 16, 2014, at 4:29 AM, Tobias Hartmann
>> <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com <mailto:tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> thanks for the review.
>>>
>>> On 15.05.2014 16:31, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>> Presumably:
>>>> *+          WHITE_BOX.enqueueMethodForCompilation(m3, COMP_LEVEL_FULL_OPTIMIZATION);*
>>>> *+          if(!WHITE_BOX.isMethodCompiled(m3)) {*
>>>> *+             throw new RuntimeException(m3 + " not compiled");*
>>>>            }
>>>> works because we’re using -XX:-BackgroundCompilation, correct?
>>>>  Maybe add a comment there.
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>
>>>>  Can we verify via WB API that BackgroundCompilation is off?
>>>
>>> Yes, this is for example done in
>>> CompilerWhiteBoxTest::getVMOption(...) to set BACKGROUND_COMPILATION.
>>> But I think because we explicitly disable background compilation in
>>> the test header it should not be possible to re-enable it, right?
>>
>> Correct but who knows what test cleanup might happen in the future.
>>  Maybe someday someone decides that we shouldn’t run tests with
>> -BackgroundCompilation.  This test is not easy to get right and had a
>> couple of issues already.  I want it fool proof.
>
> Right. I added a method backgroundCompilationEnabled(...) to check if
> background compilation is enabled and explicitly check it in main.
>
> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anoll/8021775/webrev.01/
>
> Thanks,
> Tobias
>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m happy that using the WB API worked.
>>>>
>>>> On May 15, 2014, at 5:44 AM, Tobias Hartmann
>>>> <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com <mailto:tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> please review the following patch for 8021775.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Problem
>>>>> *The compiler test for bug 8009761 checks if the stack size after
>>>>> deoptimization is the same as before by counting the number of
>>>>> possible recursive calls until a StackOverflowException occurs both
>>>>> before and after deoptimization. The test tries to trigger
>>>>> compilation by executing the method multiple times and enforces
>>>>> deoptimization by loading a previously unloaded class.
>>>>>
>>>>> The test fails on multiple platforms.*
>>>>> *Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8021775
>>>>>
>>>>> *Solution**
>>>>> *The test seems to be unstable, as there already occurred several
>>>>> test bugs (see 8010399 and 8012037). Enforcing compilation by
>>>>> executing a method multiple times is indeterministic. We have to
>>>>> make sure that the method is compiled and deoptimized exactly at
>>>>> those points in time where it is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I reimplemented the test using the Whitebox API to
>>>>> deterministically trigger compilation and deoptimization.
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anoll/8021775/webrev.00/
>>>>> *
>>>>> **Tests*
>>>>> Executed test on machines where it previously failed (1k runs, no
>>>>> fails).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>
>>
>