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

[Tobias Hartmann]

Hi Igor,

On 28.05.2014 12:32, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Since now the test uses JMX, you have to add it into needs_compact3 
> group in 'test/TEST.groups'.

Done. New webrev:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anoll/8021775/webrev.02/

Thanks,
Tobias

>
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>