RFR: 8225035: Thread stack size issue caused by large TLS size

[Jiangli Zhou]

Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jiangli/8225035/webrev.03/

Thanks for everyone's contribution on carving out the current workaround!

Best regards,
Jiangli

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:42 AM Jiangli Zhou <jianglizhou at google.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Thomas and David! Glad to see that we are converging on an
> acceptable approach here. I'll try to factor in all the latest inputs
> from everyone and send out a new update.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Jiangli
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:13 AM David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Trimming ....
> >
> > On 27/06/2019 12:35 pm, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:23 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> I think you can handle the guard size in this way:
> > >>
> > >>    pthread_attr_setguardsize(&attr, guard_size);
> > >>
> > >>    size_t stack_adjust_size = 0;
> > >>    if (AdjustStackSizeForTLS) {
> > >>      size_t minstack_size = get_minstack(&attr);
> > >>      size_t tls_size = minstack_size - vm_page_size() - PTHREAD_STACK_MIN;
> > >>      // In glibc before 2.27, tls_size still includes guard_size.
> > >>      // In glibc 2.27 and later, guard_size is automatically
> > >>      // added to the stack size by pthread_create.
> > >>      // In both cases, the guard size is taken into account.
> > >>      stack_adjust_size += tls_size;
> > >>    } else {
> > >>      stack_adjust_size += guard_size;
> > >>    }
> > >
> > > Is the vm_page_size() counted for the dl_pagesize? As long as others
> > > are okay with the above suggested adjustment, it looks good to me.
> > > Thomas, David and others, any objection?
> >
> > I find the above acceptable. I've been waiting for the dust to settle.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > > Thanks and best regards,
> > > Jiangli
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Florian