RFR(S): 7069863: G1: SIGSEGV running SPECjbb2011 and -UseBiasedLocking
John Cuthbertson
john.cuthbertson at oracle.com
Fri Jul 29 17:08:14 UTC 2011
Hi Everyone,
A new webrev based upon the feed back from Vladimir can be found at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~johnc/7069863/webrev.1/
I'm looking for one more reviewer.
Thanks,
JohnC
On 07/27/11 12:06, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> g1CollectedHeap.cpp:
>
> // When compressed oops are used the preferred heap base is calculated
> // by subtracting the requested size from the 32Gb boundary and using
> // the result as the base address for heap reservation. If the size is
> // not aligned to HeapRegion::GrainBytes passed into the
> ReservedHeapSpace
> // constructor then the base of the actual reserved heap may end up
> // differing from the requested base address. If this happens then we
> // could end up using a non-optimal compressed oops mode.
>
>
> virtualspace.cpp:
>
> 213 // prefix_align == suffix_align).
> ^ prefix_align < suffix_align
>
> ReservedSpace::ReservedSpace() also misses the call to
> failed_to_reserve_as_requested() after the code which handle wrong
> alignment.
>
> Add assert into ReservedSpace::initialize()
>
> // Assert that if noaccess_prefix is used, it is the same as alignment.
> assert(noaccess_prefix == 0 ||
> noaccess_prefix == alignment, "noaccess prefix wrong");
>
> Why we have next code? Should we do this alignment adjustment at the
> beginning of the method?
>
> 355 _alignment = MAX2(alignment, (size_t) os::vm_page_size());
>
> Vladimir
>
> John Cuthbertson wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Can I have a couple of volunteers look over these changes - the
>> webrev can be found at:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~johnc/7069863/webrev.0/
>>
>> The issue was caused by an implicit null check in generated code not
>> firing. The implicit null check did not trap as a result of a
>> mismatch between the compressed oops mode and the calculated heap
>> base. Also the page below heap base was not being protected. The
>> mismatch between the compressed oops mode and heap base was the
>> result of the G1 heap initialization code passing in a total heap
>> size (G1 heap and perm) that was not a multiple of the alignment
>> passed into the ReservedSpace constructor. Hence the preferred heap
>> base address was not correctly aligned causing the ReservedSpace to
>> be allocated at an address other than the preferred heap base. The
>> page below the heap base was not protected because the G1 heap
>> initialization code was calling the wrong ReservedSpace constructor.
>>
>> Testing: the failing test case; various small tests with various
>> collectors, large heaps, and +PrintCompressedOopsMode.
>>
>> Many thanks to Vladimir and Igor for helping to diagnose the issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> JohnC
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev
mailing list