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

[Vladimir Kozlov]

x86 changes looks good.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 5/23/17 12:29 AM, Schmidt, Lutz wrote:
> 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
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>
>      
> 
> 
> 
> 
>