RFR 8192004: InspectedFrame.materializeVirtualObjects only updates locals with new objects

[Tom Rodriguez]

Thanks!

tom

serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
> It looks good to me.
> Sorry for the latency.
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
> On 1/16/18 09:16, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> No response from JVMTI so I looked again through it. It seems fine to
>> me. Reviewed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>>
>> On 12/22/17 12:14 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Posting to hotspot-dev alias since our group does not have JVMTI
>>> experts.
>>> I looked and it seems fine but someone from serviceability should
>>> look too.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 12/22/17 11:08 AM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Could I get some reviews?  This doesn't change the way the logic
>>>> behaves for the core use of JVMTI. It just extends the encoding so
>>>> that numbers after the locals are interpreted as expression stack
>>>> and monitor values.   I believe there are existing tests of the
>>>> JVMTI set locals part and JVMCI is the only only consumer of the
>>>> monitor and expression stack part.
>>>>
>>>> tom
>>>>
>>>> Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>> JVMCI adds the ability to introspect on deoptimized frames which
>>>>> requires early materialization of escape analyzed objects. The
>>>>> jvmtiDeferredLocalVariableSet machinery is reused to capture the local
>>>>> updates required for this. The existing code only updates locals,
>>>>> leaving the stack and monitor information with out of date values.
>>>>> This
>>>>> can lead to deadlocks and incorrect execution. The fix is to slightly
>>>>> generalize jvmtiDeferredLocalVariableSet to handle expression stack
>>>>> and
>>>>> monitor slots. Tested with new graal regression test
>>>>> https://github.com/graalvm/graal/blob/7fd37bde8955780a57049964d87a51aa2407d86b/compiler/src/org.graalvm.compiler.hotspot.test/src/org/graalvm/compiler/hotspot/test/HotSpotStackIntrospectionTest.java
>>>>>
>>>>> and previously failing Truffle use cases. I assume the new test case
>>>>> will come across with a normal graal update. The clean mach5 run is in
>>>>> the bug report.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~never/8192004/webrev
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8192004
>>>
>