RFR (XXS): 8165153: Crash in rebuild_cpu_to_node_map

[David Holmes]

On 7/09/2016 4:07 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Your fix looks fine and at least gets things back to where they were
> before 6515172.

Thanks for the Review Chris - that was the intent.

> BTW, the man page for numa_allocate_cpumask() says to allocate the
> buffer using numa_node_to_cpus(). It also says to use
> numa_num_possible_cpus() to get the number of CPUs, which could have
> been used to set the size of the cpu_to_node array. I'm not sure why we
> deviated from this, but if the code had been written to use these APIs
> it would have been immune to your 6515172 changes. This might also fix
> the issue with dynamically enabled CPUs. Maybe a followup CR should be
> filed to address this after JDK 9.

To be honest I have no idea what UseNUMA is even attempting to do, let 
alone how it does it. There seems to be no testing related to this code 
other than some minimalistic checks that UseNUMA doesn't itself cause a 
crash, and that GC sets some flags - but the tests are not run in a 
numactl environment!

Cheers,
David
-----

> cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On 9/6/16 6:00 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8165153/webrev/
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165153
>>
>> The NUMA rebuild_cpu_to_node_map code is intended to map from physical
>> CPU ID's to nodes on a system. To determine how many CPUs there are it
>> uses os::active_processor_count(). That is actually incorrect as it
>> needs to how many CPUs the system has, not how many have been made
>> available to the JVM. This worked** in the past because the
>> active_processor_count() returned the number of online CPUs. However,
>> after the fix for 6515172, it returned the number of available CPUs,
>> as it should.
>>
>> The fix is to change that code to use processor_count(), which is the
>> number of configured CPUs on the system.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> ** The old code would likely also fail if the number of online CPUs
>> dynamically increased after the JVM was started!
>
>