RFR: 8239423: [TESTBUG] jdk/jfr/jvm/TestJFRIntrinsic.java failed with -XX:-TieredCompilation

[Ao Qi]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:08 PM David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 20/02/2020 8:33 pm, Ao Qi wrote:
> >> Ah! Now I see the problem. In WhiteBox we have:
> >>
> >>     if (comp_level > MIN2((CompLevel) TieredStopAtLevel,
> >> CompLevel_highest_tier)) {
> >>       tty->print_cr("WB error: invalid compilation level %d", comp_level);
> >>       return false;
> >>     }
> >>
> >> but TieredStopAtLevel should be ignored when tiered compilation is
> >> disabled, or not present. I actually think it is a bug that the VM
> >> allows you to set TieredStopAtLevel even though it is ignored on those
> >> configurations. The WB code should be changed to something like:
> >>
> >> #ifdef TIERED
> >>     CompLevel cl_min = MIN2((CompLevel) TieredStopAtLevel,
> >> CompLevel_highest_tier);
> >> #else
> >>     CompLevel cl_min = CompLevel_highest_tier;
> >> #endif
> >>     if (comp_level > cl_min) {
> >>       tty->print_cr("WB error: invalid compilation level %d", comp_level);
> >>       return false;
> >>     }
> >>
> >> There are other places in WhiteBox that need similar fixes.
> >
> > Could you give some comments or advice on this one:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8239423/webrev.01/ ?
> >
> > I think TieredStopAtLevel should be ignored when
> > -XX:-TieredCompilation is used (even a build with tiered
> > configration), so I used TieredCompilation to determine the cl_min,
> > not "#ifdef TIERED". What do you think?
>
> Yes you are quite right! That is the correct way to handle this.
>
> I assume the test passes in all combinations now?

Yes. I have tested all the combinations. Also tested tier1. No
regression found so far.

Cheers,
Ao Qi

>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> > Cheers,
> > Ao Qi
> >