RFR JDK-8195639: [Graal] nsk/jvmti/PopFrame/popframe009 fail with Graal in -Xcomp

[Alex Menkov]

Hi Dean,

Thank you for the feedback and for the comments in Jira.

 >> How does this solve the problem of
 >> HotSpotJVMCIRuntime.adjustCompilationLevel being called?

It doesn't. It fixes another issue.
The test suspend test thread and ensures that top frame is a "fibonachi" 
method. Then it turns SingleStep on, does PopFrame and resumes the thread.
The problem is the thread continues execution of compiled code (ignoring 
SingleStep) and we get SindleStep event only when adjustCompilationLevel 
method is called (it's interpreted code).

There are several other bugs which are (most likely) caused by suspend 
during call setup (JDK-8195635, JDK-8214093, JDK-8207013)

--alex

On 11/27/2018 01:39, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Dean,
> 
> Thank you a lot for looking at this!
> Just a couple of points from me (it is up to Alex to provide a full answer).
> 
> 
> I think, Alex in this RFR missed to tell that we knew about this issue 
> that an incorrect frame will be popped.
> But after some discussion we decided to file a separate issue on this.
> Alex wanted to create a good stand-alone test case demonstrating this 
> problem before filing it.
> 
> Now, as I can see, the JDK-8195635 
> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8195635> looks very close to a 
> bug that we wanted to file.
> The only difference is that our scenario includes the 
> SharedRuntime::resolve_static_call_C instead of the 
> JavaCallWrapper::JavaCallWrapper as a helper for Java method invocation.
> If I understand corrctly (Alex will fix me if needed), the jtreg test we 
> used to chase this issue did not catch a problem with the 
> HotSpotJVMCIRuntime.adjustCompilationLevel.
> 
> 
> The suggested fix was to fix the mismatch in the 
> TieredThresholdPolicy::even with the comment in the interpreter code:
> nmethod* InterpreterRuntime::frequency_counter_overflow(JavaThread* 
> thread, address branch_bcp) {
>      . . .
>    if (nm != NULL && thread->is_interp_only_mode()) {
>      // Normally we never get an nm if is_interp_only_mode() is true, 
> because
>      // policy()->event has a check for this and won't compile the 
> method when
>      // true. However, it's possible for is_interp_only_mode() to become 
> true
>      // during the compilation. We don't want to return the nm in that case
>      // because we want to continue to execute interpreted.
>      nm = NULL;
>    }
> 
>  > So I think the fix needs to be in code like 
> SharedRuntime::resolve_static_call_C(),
>  > where it returns get_c2i_entry() if is_interp_only_mode() is true.
> 
> I'm not sure, the adding this condition and returning the 
> get_c2i_entry() is always correct.
> We need some help from the Compiler team to make it right.
> 
> BTW, the interp_only_mode has been enabled only when some interp_only 
> events are enabled.
> It is not set by either PopFrame or ForceEarlyReturn.
> But the popframe009 test enables single stepping, so we wanted to make 
> this part right.
> 
> Thanks,
> Serguei
> 
> 
> On 11/26/18 16:05, dean.long at oracle.com wrote:
>> How does this solve the problem of 
>> HotSpotJVMCIRuntime.adjustCompilationLevel being called?
>>
>> I don't think this fix is the right approach.  Doesn't 
>> is_interp_only_mode() only apply to the current thread?  I don't think 
>> it's safe to assume no compiles will happen in other threads, or that 
>> a method call target is not already compiled, because as far as I can 
>> tell, JVMTI only deoptimizes the active frames.  The bug report 
>> describes a case where the caller has been deoptimized while resolving 
>> a call.  I don't see how this fix prevents the target from being a 
>> previously compiled method.  But we do need to make sure not to call 
>> into compiled code, so I think the fix needs to be in code like 
>> SharedRuntime::resolve_static_call_C(), where it returns 
>> get_c2i_entry() if is_interp_only_mode() is true.  However, there is 
>> still another problem.  By allowing JVMTI to suspend the thread during 
>> call setup, but reporting the frame as still in the caller instead of 
>> the callee, we confuse JVMTI into thinking that execution will resume 
>> in the caller instead of the callee.  We may want to restrict where we 
>> offer JVMTI suspend points, and not offer a JVMTI suspend point in 
>> SharedRuntime::resolve_static_call_C and friends at all.
>>
>> dl
>>
>>
>> On 11/26/18 11:14 AM, Alex Menkov wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Please review the fix for
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8195639
>>> webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/popframe009/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> Description:
>>> The test suspends a thread, turns on single stepping and then calls 
>>> PopFrame. SingleStep event is expected as soon as the thread is 
>>> resumed and PopFrame is processed (so we have call stack with the 
>>> depth 1 less than it was before PopFrame). Instead SingleStep event 
>>> is received with much deeper call stack (and PopFrame processes wrong 
>>> frame).
>>> Research shown that this is caused by missed deoptimization of the 
>>> current frame.
>>> As far as I understand CompilationPolicy::event should handle the 
>>> case when the thread has is_interp_only_mode() set, but 
>>> TieredThresholdPolicy::event checks this only then CompLevel is 
>>> CompLevel_none.
>>> CompilerRuntime always calls policy()->event with CompLevel == 
>>> CompLevel_aot.
>>>
>>> The fix looks quite simple, but I'd appreciate feedback from runtime 
>>> and compiler teams as I'm not sure I completely understand all the 
>>> details of the "PopFrame dance".
>>>
>>> --alex
>>
>