RFR: 8168914: Crash in ClassLoaderData/JNIHandleBlock::oops_do during concurrent marking

Wed Feb 15 20:46:35 UTC 2017

On 2/15/17 10:07 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
> On 02/15/2017 02:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Erik,
>
> Hi David,
>
> thanks for having a look! Please see new patches at:
> - incremental: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ehelin/8168914/00-01/
> - full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ehelin/8168914/01/
>
>> oops_do can miss an oop that is in the process of being added - is that
>> a problem?
>
> Nope, that is not an issue. Even if `add_handle` and `oops_do` where 
> synchronized with each other (for example by using lock), you can 
> still have the scenario where a GC thread first runs (and finishes) 
> `oops_do` and then `add_handle` is called (a linearized execution).
>
> This scenario is something the concurrent marking algorithms already 
> should be prepared to handle.
>
>>  140       if (c->data[i] != NULL) {
>>  141         f->do_oop(&c->data[i]);
>>  142       }
>>
>> Given a slot can be nulled out concurrently at any time, is it worth
>> does this NULL check? The OopClosure will have to do its own NULL check
>> anyway.
>
> Sure, this was mostly to be a bit consistent with JNIHandleBlock (it 
> does the same NULL check). Think of it as an optimization, there is no 
> reason to call `f->do_oop` if `c->data[i] == NULL`. Do you think it 
> reads better if the NULL check is removed? I don't have a strong 
> opinion on this one.
>
>>  144     c = (Chunk*) OrderAccess::load_ptr_acquire((volatile
>> intptr_t*)&c->next);
>>
>> This doesn't need to be a load-acquire. You already loaded 'c' via
>> load-acquire of _head (or chained therefrom) and its next field is set
>> prior to the setting of the _head that you read.
>
> Agree. I just discussed this with Erik Ö as well, and we all agree on 
> this. I also removed the `volatile` specifier for `next`.
>
>>  624 jobject ClassLoaderData::add_handle(Handle h) {
>>  625   MutexLockerEx ml(metaspace_lock(), 
>> Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>>  626   return (jobject) _handles.add(h());
>>  627 }
>>  628
>>  629 void ClassLoaderData::remove_handle_unsafe(jobject h) {
>>  630   assert(_handles.contains((oop*) h), "Got unexpected handle "
>> PTR_FORMAT, p2i((oop*) h));
>>  631   *((oop*) h) = NULL;
>>  632 }
>>
>> I'm a bit unclear on the typing here. Previously we use a JNI Handle
>> which was a jobject. But now we've simply stored an oop into a slot in
>> an array. We pass the address of that slot back as a jobject, but is it
>> really?
>
> So, this is a bit confusing, and I discussed this with Coleen a few 
> days ago. jobject was used originally used because that is what 
> `JNIHandleBlock::allocate_handle` returns. Using something other than 
> jobject means updating `ModuleEntry` and in particular users 
> `ModuleEntry::_pd`. This is not something we are keen on doing right 
> now for JDK 9, and Coleen is planning to clean up how the runtime 
> handles oops for 10 (or at least improve the situation).

Yes, these are not really jobject if you think of jobject and jweak as 
being native handles to oops.  These really are indirect pointers to 
oops that we use in the runtime.

We're still discussing how we want these to look for JDK10.  Your 
suggestions are welcome - we'll include you on some email as we discuss 
this (and openjdk also).

>
> I don't know what jobject is meant to represent, in the code it is 
> just an empty class (an opaque type).
>
> ClassLoaderData::add_handle could just as well return an oop*, but 
> AFAIU we try to avoid oops and oop* in the runtime code (because that 
> might mean that some code forgot to tell the GC about the oop). Maybe 
> I'm wrong here?

You are right.  We don't want to have oop* in the runtime code because 
it also is unclear if it was supposed to be compressed or not.  We want 
a special name for these.

Thanks,
Coleen
>
> > I would also expect contains to take an oop not an oop* - it
> > seems to be asking "is this an address of a slot in our
> > ChunkedHandleList" rather than asking "is this oop in our
> > ChunkedHandleList". ??
>
> I actually wanted the assert to check whether the passed jobject 
> (which really is an oop*) actually originated from a call to 
> ClassLoaderData::add_handle. I don't want any code to pass a jobject 
> to ClassLoaderData::remove_handle_unsafe that doesn't come from a call 
> to ClassLoaderData::add_handle.
>
>> A few minor comments:
>>
>> Copyrights need updating.
>
> Aaah, it is that time of the year again. Fixed.
>
>> src/share/vm/classfile/classLoaderData.hpp
>>
>> 177     // Only on thread ...
>>
>> Typo: on -> one
>
> Thanks, fixed.
>
>> src/share/vm/classfile/moduleEntry.cpp
>>
>> 90   // Create a JNI handle for the shared ProtectionDomain and save it
>> atomically.
>>  91   // If someone beats us setting the _pd cache, the created JNI
>> handle is destroyed.
>>
>> These are no longer JNI Handles.
>
> Thanks, I updated the comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>> Testing:
>>> - Tier 1 (aka JPRT), 2, 3, 4, 5.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate quite a few reviews on this patch, it contains a 
>>> nice
>>> mixture of:
>>> - me venturing into the runtime code :)
>>> - lock free code
>>> - unreproducible bug (even though I'm sure of the root cause)
>>>
>>> Thanks for everyone participating in the discussions around this bug 
>>> and
>>> potential solutions: Volker, Coleen, Mikael G, StefanK, Erik Ö and
>>> Jiangli.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Erik
>>>
>>> [0]: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168914