[10] [ppc] RFR(XS): 8180612: assert failure due to immediate value out of range

[Schmidt, Lutz]

Vladimir, Volker,

Triggered by your suggestions, I have read through the RTM code with extended diligence. What I came up with is this updated/extended 
webrev:  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lucy/webrevs/8180612.01/
for bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180612

For both x86 and ppc, I have added ranges to all numeric RTM flags. Their type is now “int”. Could you please have a look and let me know what you don’t like?

Thanks and best regards, 
Lutz

 

On 19.05.2017, 21:40, "Vladimir Kozlov" <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:

    Actually we need to use 'int' because we do signed arithmetic on them. And put range() restriction for positive values only.
    
       experimental(int, RTMTotalCountIncrRate, 64,                              \
               "Increment total RTM attempted lock count once every n times")    \
               range(0, max_jint)                                                \
    
    Vladimir
    
    On 5/19/17 12:33 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
    > Thank you, Volker
    >
    > I think all RTM tuning flags should be uint (unsigned 32bit int).
    > We did not have int/uint types when RTM was implemented. They were added 2 years ago:
    >
    > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/hotspot/rev/8597e296c18b
    >
    > Lets change type of RTM flags in all places. I will review and sponsor.
    >
    > thanks,
    > Vladimir
    >
    > On 5/19/17 12:02 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
    >> Hi Lutz, Vladimir,
    >>
    >> @Lutz: thanks for fixing this. I think your change looks good.
    >>
    >> @Vladimir: thanks, but I think we can push this ourselves because it
    >> is ppc only.
    >>
    >> I've also realized that amd64 uses cmpptr() which takes the result of
    >> "RTMLockingThreshold / RTMTotalCountIncrRate" as an int32_t. This can
    >> be wrong if the result of the division is greater than 32 bit. I'm not
    >> sure how relevant that is, but maybe we could either change the types
    >> of RTMLockingThreshold and RTMTotalCountIncrRate to int or else fix
    >> the compare on amd64 to compare against a full 64 bit value.
    >>
    >> What do you think Vladimir - maybe do that as a follow up change or do
    >> you want to include it here (in which case you'd have to sponsor :) ?
    >>
    >> Thank you and best regards,
    >> Volker
    >>
    >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Vladimir Kozlov
    >> <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
    >>> Hi Lutz,
    >>>
    >>> I can sponsor it but someone familiar with PPC have to review the fix.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Vladimir
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 5/19/17 5:45 AM, Schmidt, Lutz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Hi all,
    >>>>
    >>>> May I kindly request reviews for this small fix? A voluntary sponsor would
    >>>> be great as well!
    >>>>
    >>>> Bug:    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180612
    >>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lucy/webrevs/8180612.00/
    >>>>
    >>>> The RTM code generation on ppc relied on RTM-related cmdline parameters to
    >>>> provide “well-behaved” values only. At least one jtreg test breaks this
    >>>> assumption. The fix makes code generation adapt to actual parameter values.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks,
    >>>> Lutz
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>