RFR (L) 8213501 : Deploy ExceptionJniWrapper for a few tests
JC Beyler
jcbeyler at google.com
Tue Nov 27 14:56:10 UTC 2018
Thanks Chris,
Anybody else motivated to look at this and review it? :)
Jc
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 1:26 PM Chris Plummer <chris.plummer at oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hi JC,
>
> I'm ok with the FatalError approach, but would like to hear opinions from
> others also.
>
> thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 11/21/18 8:19 AM, JC Beyler wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to look at it and yes you have raised exactly
> why the webrev is between two worlds: in cases where a fatal error on
> failure is wanted, should we simplify the code to remove the return tests
> since we do them internally? Now that I've looked around for non-fatal
> cases, I think the answer is yes, it simplifies the code while maintaining
> the checks.
>
> I looked a bit and it seems that I can't find easily a case where the test
> accepts a JNI failure to then move on. Therefore, perhaps, for now, the
> fail with a Fatal is enough and we can work on the tests to clean them up?
>
> That means that this is the new webrev with only Fatal and cleans up the
> tests so that it is no longer in between two worlds:
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8213501/webrev.02/
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213501
>
> (This passes testing on my dev machine for all the modified tests)
>
> with the example you provided, it now looks like:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8213501/webrev.02/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/scenarios/allocation/AP04/ap04t003/ap04t003.cpp.frames.html
>
> Where it does, to me at least, seem cleaner and less "noisy".
>
> Let me know what you think,
> Jc
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:33 PM Chris Plummer <chris.plummer at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi JC,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay. I had to go back an look at the initial 8210842
>> webrev and RFR thread to see what this was initially all about.
>>
>> In general the changes look good.
>>
>> I don't have a good answer to your FatalError/NonFatalError question. It
>> makes the code a lot cleaner to use FatalError, but then it is a behavior
>> change, and you also need to deal with tests that intentionally induce
>> errors (do you have an example of that).
>>
>> In any case, right now your webrev seems to be between two worlds. You
>> are producing FatalError, but still checking results. Here's a good example:
>>
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8213501/webrev.01/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/scenarios/allocation/AP04/ap04t003/ap04t003.cpp.frames.html
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is just a temporary state until it was decided which
>> approach to take.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/18 2:14 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Chris thought it made sense to have more eyes on this change than just
>> serviceability as it will modify to tests that are not only serviceability
>> tests so I've moved this to conversation here :)
>>
>> For convenience, I've copy-pasted the initial RFR:
>>
>> Could I have a review for the extension and usage of the
>> ExceptionJniWrapper. This adds lines and filenames to the end of the
>> wrapper JNI methods, adds tracing, and throws an error if need be. I've
>> ported the gc/lock files to use the new TRACE_JNI_CALL add-on and I've
>> ported a few of the tests that were already changed for the assignment
>> webrev for JDK-8212884.
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8213501/webrev.01
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213501
>>
>> For illustration, if I force an error to the AP04/ap04t03 test and set
>> the verbosity on, I get something like:
>>
>> >> Calling JNI method FindClass from ap04t003.cpp:343
>> >> Calling with these parameter(s):
>> java/lang/Threadd
>> Wait for thread to finish
>> << Called JNI method FindClass from ap04t003.cpp:343
>> Exception in thread "Thread-0" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>> java/lang/Threadd
>> at
>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003.runIterateOverHeap(Native
>> Method)
>> at
>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003HeapIterator.runIteration(ap04t003.java:140)
>> at
>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003Thread.run(ap04t003.java:201)
>> Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: java.lang.Threadd
>> at
>> java.base/jdk.internal.loader.BuiltinClassLoader.loadClass(BuiltinClassLoader.java:583)
>> at
>> java.base/jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoaders.java:178)
>> at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:521)
>> ... 3 more
>> FATAL ERROR in native method: JNI method FindClass : internal error from
>> ap04t003.cpp:343
>> at
>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003.runIterateOverHeap(Native
>> Method)
>> at
>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003HeapIterator.runIteration(ap04t003.java:140)
>> at
>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003Thread.run(ap04t003.java:201)
>>
>> Questions/comments I have about this are:
>> - Do we want to force fatal errors when a JNI call fails in general?
>> Most of these tests do the right thing and test the return of the JNI
>> calls, for example:
>> thrClass = jni->FindClass("java/lang/Threadd", TRACE_JNI_CALL);
>> if (thrClass == NULL) {
>>
>> but now the wrapper actually would do a fatal if the FindClass call would
>> return a nullptr, so we could remove that test altogether. What do you
>> think?
>> - I prefer to leave them as the tests then become closer to what real
>> users would have in their code and is the "recommended" way of doing it
>>
>>
>> - The alternative is to use the NonFatalError I added which then just
>> prints out that something went wrong, letting the test continue. Question
>> will be what should be the default? The fatal or the non-fatal error
>> handling?
>>
>> On a different subject:
>> - On the new tests, I've removed the NSK_JNI_VERIFY since the JNI
>> wrapper handles the tracing and the verify in almost the same way; only
>> difference I can really tell is that the complain method from NSK has a max
>> complain before stopping to "complain"; I have not added that part of the
>> code in this webrev
>>
>> Once we decide on these, I can continue on the files from JDK-8212884 and
>> then do both the assignment in an if extraction followed-by this type of
>> webrev in an easier fashion. Depending on decisions here, NSK*VERIFY can be
>> deprecated as well as we go forward.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jc
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:34 AM Chris Plummer <chris.plummer at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/19/18 10:07 AM, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> @David/Chris: should I then push this RFR to the hotspot mailing or the
>>> runtime one? For what it's worth, a lot of the tests under the vmTestbase
>>> are jvmti so the review also affects serviceability; it just turns out I
>>> started with the GC originally and then hit some other tests I had touched
>>> via the assignment extraction.
>>>
>>> I think hotspot would be best.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> @Serguei: Done for the method renaming, for the indent, are you talking
>>> about going from the 8-indent to 4-indent? If so, would it not just be
>>> better to do a new JBS bug and do the whole files in one go? I ask because
>>> otherwise, it will look a bit weird to have parts of the file as 8-indent
>>> and others 4-indent?
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking at it!
>>> Jc
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:25 AM serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com <
>>> serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jc,
>>>>
>>>> We have to start this review anyway. :)
>>>> It looks good to me in general.
>>>> Thank you for your consistency in this refactoring!
>>>>
>>>> Some minor comments.
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8213501/webrev.00/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jni/ExceptionCheckingJniEnv.cpp.udiff.html
>>>>
>>>> +static const char* remove_folders(const char* fullname) {
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest to rename the function name to something traditional like get_basename.
>>>> Otherwise, it sounds like this function has to really remove folders. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, all *Locker.cpp have wrong indent in the bodies of if and while statements.
>>>> Could this be fixed with the refactoring?
>>>>
>>>> I did not look on how this impacts the tests other than serviceability.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Serguei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/18 19:43, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Anybody motivated to review this? :)
>>>> Jc
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:53 PM JC Beyler <jcbeyler at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I have a review for the extension and usage of the
>>>>> ExceptionJniWrapper. This adds lines and filenames to the end of the
>>>>> wrapper JNI methods, adds tracing, and throws an error if need be. I've
>>>>> ported the gc/lock files to use the new TRACE_JNI_CALL add-on and I've
>>>>> ported a few of the tests that were already changed for the assignment
>>>>> webrev for JDK-8212884.
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8213501/webrev.00/
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213501
>>>>>
>>>>> For illustration, if I force an error to the AP04/ap04t03 test and set
>>>>> the verbosity on, I get something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Calling JNI method FindClass from ap04t003.cpp:343
>>>>> >> Calling with these parameter(s):
>>>>> java/lang/Threadd
>>>>> Wait for thread to finish
>>>>> << Called JNI method FindClass from ap04t003.cpp:343
>>>>> Exception in thread "Thread-0" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>>>>> java/lang/Threadd
>>>>> at
>>>>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003.runIterateOverHeap(Native
>>>>> Method)
>>>>> at
>>>>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003HeapIterator.runIteration(ap04t003.java:140)
>>>>> at
>>>>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003Thread.run(ap04t003.java:201)
>>>>> Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: java.lang.Threadd
>>>>> at
>>>>> java.base/jdk.internal.loader.BuiltinClassLoader.loadClass(BuiltinClassLoader.java:583)
>>>>> at
>>>>> java.base/jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoaders.java:178)
>>>>> at
>>>>> java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:521)
>>>>> ... 3 more
>>>>> FATAL ERROR in native method: JNI method FindClass : internal error
>>>>> from ap04t003.cpp:343
>>>>> at
>>>>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003.runIterateOverHeap(Native
>>>>> Method)
>>>>> at
>>>>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003HeapIterator.runIteration(ap04t003.java:140)
>>>>> at
>>>>> nsk.jvmti.scenarios.allocation.AP04.ap04t003Thread.run(ap04t003.java:201)
>>>>>
>>>>> Questions/comments I have about this are:
>>>>> - Do we want to force fatal errors when a JNI call fails in general?
>>>>> Most of these tests do the right thing and test the return of the JNI
>>>>> calls, for example:
>>>>> thrClass = jni->FindClass("java/lang/Threadd", TRACE_JNI_CALL);
>>>>> if (thrClass == NULL) {
>>>>>
>>>>> but now the wrapper actually would do a fatal if the FindClass call
>>>>> would return a nullptr, so we could remove that test altogether. What do
>>>>> you think?
>>>>> - I prefer to leave them as the tests then become closer to what
>>>>> real users would have in their code and is the "recommended" way of doing it
>>>>>
>>>>> - The alternative is to use the NonFatalError I added which then
>>>>> just prints out that something went wrong, letting the test continue.
>>>>> Question will be what should be the default? The fatal or the non-fatal
>>>>> error handling?
>>>>>
>>>>> On a different subject:
>>>>> - On the new tests, I've removed the NSK_JNI_VERIFY since the JNI
>>>>> wrapper handles the tracing and the verify in almost the same way; only
>>>>> difference I can really tell is that the complain method from NSK has a max
>>>>> complain before stopping to "complain"; I have not added that part of the
>>>>> code in this webrev
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we decide on these, I can continue on the files from JDK-8212884
>>>>> and then do both the assignment in an if extraction followed-by this type
>>>>> of webrev in an easier fashion. Depending on decisions here, NSK*VERIFY can
>>>>> be deprecated as well as we go forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the reviews/comments :)
>>>>> Jc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jc
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
> Jc
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Jc
More information about the hotspot-dev
mailing list