review request for JDK-8013461 There is a symbol AsyncGetCallTrace in libjvm.symbols that does not exist in minimal/libjvm.a when DEBUG_LEVEL == release

[Bob Vandette]

Joe,

I'm ok with this approach.

Bob.

On May 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Joseph Provino wrote:

> Is there a consensus what is in the webrev is okay?
> 
> The change is to include forte.cpp in the minimal jvm but to
> conditionalize the code so that only AsyncGetCallTrace()
> is defined with the minimal jvm.
> 
> Webrev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jprovino/8013461/webrev.01
> 
>    JDK-8013461 https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013461
>    There is a symbol AsyncGetCallTrace in libjvm.symbols that does not exist in
>    minimal/libjvm.a when DEBUG_LEVEL == release
> 
> joe
> 
> On 05/21/2013 04:52 PM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote:
>> 
>> On 5/21/2013 4:00 PM, Oleg Mazurov wrote:
>>> Though formally not part of the Solaris Studio team any more here is my opinion based on my recollection of how I implemented interaction with the JVM via AsyncGetCallTrace.
>>> It's looked up using dlsym. If the symbol is not there Java callstack collection is shut down. I understand in your case even JVMTI is not there so the dlsym call will not be made.
>>> From that perspective there is no difference whether the symbol is present and returns an error code or not present at all.
>> 
>> Oleg, then it sounds like what we have will work.
>> 
>> Thanks for the quick reply.
>> 
>> joe
>> 
>>> 
>>>    -- Oleg
>>> 
>>> On 5/21/2013 12:19 PM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/21/2013 3:16 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/13 11:26 AM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/21/2013 2:23 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21 maj 2013, at 17:35, JOSEPH PROVINO <joseph.provino at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2013 3:06 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Staffan,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 21/05/2013 4:49 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21 maj 2013, at 04:34, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> <added servicability>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> As I have previously stated you copied the struct definitions instead of moving them outside the ifdef.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Serviceability folk: we are particularly interested in whether the use of ticks_no_class_load is deemed appropriate in this situation. Who will be consuming this value?
>>>>>>>>>> Since you have opted for the simple fix of having an exported but non-functional AsyncGetCallTrace instead of actually removing the symbol from the symbol files (which is the proposed solution in the bug report),
>>>>>>>>> That would be a simpler solution semantically but the only way I can see to do that is to use a text replacement mechanism in the build files - as is done for the dynamic vtable symbols. I find that less appealing than simply exporting an interface that is configured to report an error (which is essentially what all the optional interfaces do under the minimal VM).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would like you to include a comment about this in the source. Right now it's very unclear why there is an exported function that only returns an error.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As to the appropriate return value, I don't know. The only caller should be the Sun Studio profiler,
>>>>>> Does anyone know where to find instructions on how to run the collector which would get the error return value?
>>>>>>>>>>  and I'm not sure how it will handle this case if ever run. The possible return values aren't very well documented.
>>>>>>>>> I guess we need to try and run it to find out.
>>>>>>>> Okay, do either of you feel strongly about how this should be fixed -- return an error or remove the symbol?
>>>>>>> No, I don't feel strongly either way, but a comment in the code would be nice.
>>>>>> How much effort should I put into finding out what Sun Studio profiler does when it gets -1?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let's ask the Solaris Studio guys directly.
>>>>> I'm adding Oleg to the mailing list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oleg,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Could you, please, share your view on this problem?
>>>> 
>>>> In particular what will the Sun Studio Profiler collector do if it gets the error
>>>> 
>>>> trace->num_frames = ticks_no_class_load; // -1
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> joe
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Serguei
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> joe
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> /Staffan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> joe
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> /Staffan
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/05/2013 5:10 AM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The change is to include forte.cpp in the minimal jvm but to
>>>>>>>>>>>> conditionalize the code so that
>>>>>>>>>>>> only AsyncGetCallTrace() is defined with the minimal jvm.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jprovino/8013461/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>  * JDK-8013461 <https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013461>There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>    a symbol AsyncGetCallTrace in libjvm.symbols that does not exist in
>>>>>>>>>>>>    minimal/libjvm.a when DEBUG_LEVEL == release
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013461>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> joe
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>