RFR 8242263: Diagnose synchronization on primitive wrappers
Patricio Chilano
patricio.chilano.mateo at oracle.com
Tue Aug 11 22:10:43 UTC 2020
Hi David,
On 8/10/20 9:26 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> One follow up ... I'll send separate mail for v5.
>
> On 11/08/2020 6:19 am, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On 8/10/20 1:12 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Patricio,
>>>
>>> First, I confirmed with Valhalla folk that this change is fine to go
>>> ahead as a stand-alone change independent of the proposed JEP in
>>> this area.
>> Great, thanks for that! : )
>>
>>> I've checked the incremental changes for v2, v3 and v4 and
>>> everything seems good to me.
>>>
>>> I only have a couple of nits with the tests:
>>>
>>> 54 private static void initTestObjects() {
>>> 55 testObjects.add(Character.valueOf('H'));
>>> 56 testObjects.add(Boolean.valueOf(true));
>>> 57 Byte byteT = 0x40;
>>> 58 testObjects.add(byteT);
>>> 59 Short shortT = 0x4000;
>>> 60 testObjects.add(shortT);
>>> 61 testObjects.add(Integer.valueOf(0x40000000));
>>> 62 testObjects.add(Long.valueOf(0x4000000000000000L));
>>> 63 testObjects.add(Float.valueOf(1.20f));
>>> 64 testObjects.add(Double.valueOf(1.2345));
>>> 65 }
>>>
>>> Why are Byte and Short treated differently?
>> If I do the same as with the other types, the argument passed to
>> Byte.valueOf() and Short.valueOf() gets treated as an int and I get a
>> compilation error:
>>
>> : error: no suitable method found for valueOf(int)
>> testObjects.add(Byte.valueOf(0x40));
>
> Right - you'd need to cast the constant to byte/short:
>
> testObjects.add(Byte.valueOf((byte)0x40));
Ok, I changed it in both SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest.java and
TestSyncOnPrimitiveWrapperEvent.java:
diff --git
a/test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/Monitor/SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest.java
b/test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/Monitor/SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest.java
--- a/test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/Monitor/SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest.java
+++ b/test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/Monitor/SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest.java
@@ -55,8 +55,6 @@
testObjects.add(Character.valueOf('H'));
testObjects.add(Boolean.valueOf(true));
- Byte byteT = 0x40;
- testObjects.add(byteT);
- Short shortT = 0x4000;
- testObjects.add(shortT);
+ testObjects.add(Byte.valueOf((byte)0x40));
+ testObjects.add(Short.valueOf((short)0x4000));
testObjects.add(Integer.valueOf(0x40000000));
testObjects.add(Long.valueOf(0x4000000000000000L));
diff --git
a/test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestSyncOnPrimitiveWrapperEvent.java
b/test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestSyncOnPrimitiveWrapperEvent.java
--- a/test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestSyncOnPrimitiveWrapperEvent.java
+++ b/test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestSyncOnPrimitiveWrapperEvent.java
@@ -51,8 +51,6 @@
testObjects.add(Character.valueOf('H'));
testObjects.add(Boolean.valueOf(true));
- Byte byteT = 0x40;
- testObjects.add(byteT);
- Short shortT = 0x4000;
- testObjects.add(shortT);
+ testObjects.add(Byte.valueOf((byte)0x40));
+ testObjects.add(Short.valueOf((short)0x4000));
testObjects.add(Integer.valueOf(0x40000000));
testObjects.add(Long.valueOf(0x4000000000000000L));
Thanks,
Patricio
> Cheers,
> David
> ^
>> method Byte.valueOf(byte) is not applicable
>> (argument mismatch; possible lossy conversion from int to byte)
>> method Byte.valueOf(String) is not applicable
>> (argument mismatch; int cannot be converted to String)
>>
>>> 74 fatalTests[index] = Stream.of(commonFatalTestsFlags,
>>> specificFlags[i], new String[]
>>> {"SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest$FatalTest", Integer.toString(j)})
>>> 75 .flatMap(Stream::of).toArray(String[]::new);
>>>
>>> The preferred Java style [1] for stream operations is:
>>>
>>> fatalTests[index] = Stream.of(commonFatalTestsFlags,
>>> specificFlags[i], new String[]
>>> {"SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest$FatalTest", Integer.toString(j)})
>>> .flatMap(Stream::of)
>>> .toArray(String[]::new);
>> Fixed.
>>
>> Here is v5:
>> Inc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8242263/v5/inc/webrev/
>> Full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8242263/v5/webrev/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Patricio
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> -----
>>>
>>> [1] As demonstrated here (but widely used in JDK code):
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alundblad/styleguide/index-v6.html#toc-wrapping-lines
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/08/2020 4:48 am, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>
>>>> On 8/5/20 6:47 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>> I'm peeking ahead to the next webrev... :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8242263/v3/webrev/
>>>> : )
>>>>
>>>>> General comments:
>>>>> - check files for copyright year updates.
>>>> Updated accessFlags.hpp, c1_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp,
>>>> c1_MacroAssembler_arm.cpp and c1_MacroAssembler_x86.cpp.
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.hpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp
>>>>> L507: const markWord mark = obj->mark();
>>>>> L508:
>>>>> L509: if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0 &&
>>>>> obj->klass()->is_box()) {
>>>>> L510: return false;
>>>>> L511: }
>>>>> The new bailout on L509-511 can move above L507.
>>>> Moved.
>>>>
>>>>> L573: fatal("Synchronizing on object " INTPTR_FORMAT " of
>>>>> klass %s", p2i(obj()), obj->klass()->external_name());
>>>>> This external_name() call does not have a ResourceMark.
>>>> Good catch! I had one in a previous version but then I changed the
>>>> conditionals and lost it for the fatal error case. The test worked
>>>> okay because for the main JavaThread there is a ResourceMark in
>>>> jni_invoke_static() (jni.cpp).
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/logging/logTag.hpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/oops/klass.hpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/utilities/accessFlags.hpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/globals.hpp
>>>>> L814: "0: off "
>>>>> Missing a ';' after "off".
>>>> Fixed.
>>>>
>>>>> L816: "2: log message to stdout.
>>>>> Perhaps add "(by default)" after "stdout" or
>>>>> don't say where log output is at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/arguments.cpp
>>>>> L4197: LogConfiguration::configure_stdout(LogLevel::Info,
>>>>> true, LOG_TAGS(primitivewrappers));
>>>>> Hmmm... maybe ignore my comments about L816 in globals.hpp
>>>>> since it looks like logging output is configured to 'stdout'.
>>>>> I'm assuming that other log options to put output elsewhere
>>>>> are overridden by this code?
>>>> Right. So the logging is done under UL with the tag
>>>> primitivewrappers. If that tag is specified in Xlog then this
>>>> conditional will be skipped because !log_is_enabled(Info,
>>>> primitivewrappers) will be false.
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/systemDictionary.cpp
>>>>> L2188: for (int i = T_BOOLEAN; i < T_LONG+1; i++) {
>>>>> nit - s/T_LONG+1/T_LONG + 1/
>>>> Fixed.
>>>>
>>>>> L2191: _box_klasses[i]->set_prototype_header(markWord::prototype());
>>>>> I assume we're keeping the prototype_header field when
>>>>> Biased Locking
>>>>> goes away? The reason I ask:
>>>>>
>>>>> static markWord prototype() {
>>>>> return markWord( no_hash_in_place | no_lock_in_place );
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> is because without Biased Locking, do we really need the
>>>>> prototype
>>>>> anymore? The initial markWord won't need possible variants...
>>>> Yes, I think it can go away unless somebody finds another use for
>>>> it. Maybe Valhalla.
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/jfr/metadata/metadata.xml
>>>>> L69: <Event name="SyncOnPrimitiveWrapper" category="Java
>>>>> Application"
>>>>> Is the category "Java Application" because it's the
>>>>> application
>>>>> code that did something "wrong" here? Where "application"
>>>>> is loosely
>>>>> defined to include the possibility of auto generated code,
>>>>> library
>>>>> code and the like? Or perhaps "application" because
>>>>> something "above"
>>>>> the "Java Virtual Machine, Runtime" did the "wrong" thing
>>>>> here?
>>>> I don't know what the right category should be really. I saw the
>>>> events JavaMonitorEnter, JavaMonitorWait and JavaMonitorInflate and
>>>> thought this event should fall in the same category they do.
>>>>
>>>>> src/jdk.jfr/share/conf/jfr/default.jfc
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/jdk.jfr/share/conf/jfr/profile.jfc
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> test/lib/jdk/test/lib/jfr/EventNames.java
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/aarch64.ad
>>>>> L3517: __ tbnz(tmp, exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS),
>>>>> cont);
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> L3578: __ bind(cont);
>>>>> L3579: // flag == EQ indicates success
>>>>> L3580: // flag == NE indicates failure
>>>>> If tbnz() branches to "cont" when we have a box class, what's
>>>>> the flag value set to (EQ or NE)? And what set that flag
>>>>> value?
>>>>> The reason I ask is I don't think tbnz() sets condition
>>>>> codes...
>>>> Right, it doesn't set condition codes, so I kept the version I had
>>>> (more on that below).
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c1_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/interp_masm_aarch64.cpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/macroAssembler_aarch64.cpp
>>>>> int MacroAssembler::biased_locking_enter(Register lock_reg,
>>>>> Register obj_reg,
>>>>> Register swap_reg,
>>>>> Register tmp_reg,
>>>>> bool
>>>>> swap_reg_contains_mark,
>>>>> Label& done,
>>>>> Label* slow_case,
>>>>> BiasedLockingCounters* counters) {
>>>>> I think you've changed the only callers of
>>>>> biased_locking_enter()
>>>>> that cared about the return value with this changeset so
>>>>> it can
>>>>> be changed to a void function.
>>>> Ok, this is what I mentioned to David in a previous email. Done.
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/arm/c1_MacroAssembler_arm.cpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/arm/c2_MacroAssembler_arm.cpp
>>>>> L96: tbnz(Rscratch, exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS), done);
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> L131: bind(done);
>>>>> L132:
>>>>> L133: // At this point flags are set as follows:
>>>>> L134: // EQ -> Success
>>>>> L135: // NE -> Failure, branch to slow path
>>>>> If tbnz() branches to "done" when we have a box class, what's
>>>>> the flag value set to (EQ or NE)? And what set that flag
>>>>> value?
>>>>> The reason I ask is I don't think tbnz() sets condition
>>>>> codes...
>>>> Right. Same as above, I kept the version I had.
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/arm/interp_masm_arm.cpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/arm/macroAssembler_arm.cpp
>>>>> int MacroAssembler::biased_locking_enter(Register obj_reg,
>>>>> Register swap_reg, Register tmp_reg,
>>>>> bool
>>>>> swap_reg_contains_mark,
>>>>> Register tmp2,
>>>>> Label& done, Label&
>>>>> slow_case,
>>>>> BiasedLockingCounters* counters) {
>>>>> I think you've changed the only callers of
>>>>> biased_locking_enter()
>>>>> that cared about the return value with this changeset so
>>>>> it can
>>>>> be changed to a void function.
>>>> Done.
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_MacroAssembler_ppc.cpp
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/interp_masm_ppc_64.cpp
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/macroAssembler_ppc.cpp
>>>>> No comments on the PPC code.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/s390/c1_MacroAssembler_s390.cpp
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interp_masm_s390.cpp
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/s390/macroAssembler_s390.cpp
>>>>> No comments on the S390 code.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c1_MacroAssembler_x86.cpp
>>>>> L58: load_klass(hdr, obj, rklass_decode_tmp);
>>>>> What will this do with a 'noreg' value? (I need a refresher.)
>>>> When not in 64 bit mode that register just won't be used.
>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c2_MacroAssembler_x86.cpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/interp_masm_x86.cpp
>>>>> No comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/macroAssembler_x86.cpp
>>>>> int MacroAssembler::biased_locking_enter(Register lock_reg,
>>>>> Register obj_reg,
>>>>> Register swap_reg,
>>>>> Register tmp_reg,
>>>>> Register tmp_reg2,
>>>>> bool
>>>>> swap_reg_contains_mark,
>>>>> Label& done,
>>>>> Label* slow_case,
>>>>> BiasedLockingCounters* counters) {
>>>>> I think you've changed the only caller of
>>>>> biased_locking_enter()
>>>>> that cared about the return value with this changeset so
>>>>> it can
>>>>> be changed to a void function.
>>>> Done.
>>>>
>>>>> test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/Monitor/SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest.java
>>>>> L30: * @test SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest
>>>>> No parameter to @test directive.
>>>> Removed.
>>>>
>>>>> L136: private static long sharedCounter = 0L;
>>>>> Since you don't do anything with sharedCounter other than
>>>>> increment it,
>>>>> can the compilers optimize it away? If it can be optimized
>>>>> away, does
>>>>> that mean that:
>>>>>
>>>>> L142: synchronized (obj) {
>>>>>
>>>>> can also be optimized away?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that:
>>>>>
>>>>> L161: synchronized (sharedLock1) {
>>>>>
>>>>> can be optimized away because it is shared by multiple
>>>>> threads.
>>>>>
>>>>> test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestSyncOnPrimitiveWrapperEvent.java
>>>>> Similar questions about 'counter' being optimized away.
>>>>> Similar question about "synchronized (obj) {" being optimized
>>>>> away.
>>>> I'm not sure if the compiler will optimize it away. Seems unlikely
>>>> given the counter we are incrementing is not just local to some
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, below is v3 which has the following changes:
>>>> - Use a 32 bit load for the _access_flags field, instead of 64
>>>> - Martin's implementation for s390 and fix for PPC
>>>> - Faster LogTest version
>>>> - Above changes based on Dan review
>>>>
>>>> I'm retesting in mach5 tiers1-6 (which tests x64 and aarch64 only)
>>>> again with -XX:DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers=2. I checked it
>>>> builds in arm32, ppc and s390.
>>>>
>>>> Full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8242263/v3/webrev
>>>> Inc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8242263/v3/inc/webrev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @Martin:
>>>> Please check if the test doesn't timeout for you now with the
>>>> changes I made to LogTest.
>>>> Also, I tried to use tbnz in aarch64 and arm32 instead of tst + br
>>>> (except for c2 since we actually need to set the condition flags),
>>>> but for c1 I was getting an assertion in the compiler thread:
>>>>
>>>> guarantee(chk == -1 || chk == 0) failed: Field too big for insn
>>>>
>>>> This is the stack when that happens:
>>>>
>>>> MacroAssembler::pd_patch_instruction_size(unsigned char*, unsigned
>>>> char*)+0x398
>>>> AbstractAssembler::bind(Label&)+0x118
>>>> MonitorEnterStub::emit_code(LIR_Assembler*)+0x28
>>>> LIR_Assembler::emit_slow_case_stubs()+0x54
>>>> Compilation::emit_code_body()+0x17c
>>>>
>>>> The change was simply:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c1_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp
>>>> b/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c1_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp
>>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c1_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp
>>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c1_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp
>>>> @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@
>>>> if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0) {
>>>> load_klass(hdr, obj);
>>>> - ldr(hdr, Address(hdr, Klass::access_flags_offset()));
>>>> - tst(hdr, JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS);
>>>> - br(Assembler::NE, slow_case);
>>>> + ldrw(hdr, Address(hdr, Klass::access_flags_offset()));
>>>> + tbnz(hdr, exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS), slow_case);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> So the issue must be related to where we want to jump.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Patricio
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/5/20 9:01 AM, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/5/20 4:47 AM, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Patricio,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> using 8 Byte load instructions for jint fields is a terrible
>>>>>>> coding style!
>>>>>>> Someone else may see it and use an 8 Byte store. Will result in
>>>>>>> great fun for debugging!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And on Big Endian you will simply access the wrong bits.
>>>>>> Ah, of course! Those 32 bits will be in the wrong place when
>>>>>> doing the test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that Big Endian Platforms are AIX, old linux ppc, s390,
>>>>>>> SPARC. I don't think you have tested on them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could remove the nested synchronized statements in the run()
>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>> so that we don't generate that much logging. We could also lower
>>>>>>>> LOOP_COUNT. I think the issue is also because we are running
>>>>>>>> LogTest
>>>>>>>> with multiple flag combinations. Not sure what we should touch
>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>> Maybe the synchronized statements, have only one or two and
>>>>>>>> test that
>>>>>>>> first?
>>>>>>> Sounds like helpful ideas. Please go ahead and strip things down.
>>>>>> Great, I will send v3 later with those changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Martin!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patricio
>>>>>>> Thanks for taking care of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Patricio Chilano <patricio.chilano.mateo at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 4. August 2020 20:26
>>>>>>>> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; David Holmes
>>>>>>>> <david.holmes at oracle.com>; hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net;
>>>>>>>> hotspot-jfr-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: RFR 8242263: Diagnose synchronization on primitive
>>>>>>>> wrappers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/4/20 1:35 PM, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Patricio,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I'll change it to movl + testl and test it out before
>>>>>>>>>> sending v3.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks. I forgot to mention arm + aarch64.
>>>>>>>>> Aarch64 uses ldrw + tbnz.
>>>>>>>>> Arm 32 bit uses ldr_u32 + tbnz.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I remember having seen the same mistake ��
>>>>>>>>> And nobody noticed it on little Endian platforms.
>>>>>>>> Ok, I can use a tbnz instead of test and then a branch on arm32
>>>>>>>> and aarch64.
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't a normal ldr in arm32 work fine?
>>>>>>>> Also in 64 bits (either x64 or aarch64) I don't see the issue
>>>>>>>> of using a
>>>>>>>> 64 bit load, besides the fact that we only care about the first
>>>>>>>> 32 bits.
>>>>>>>> Regardless of the endianness, aren't we masking out the upper
>>>>>>>> part when
>>>>>>>> we do AND/TEST or if we test a bit in the 0-31 bit range?
>>>>>>>> Otherwise it
>>>>>>>> seems it should have failed for one of those platforms in my
>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see that some tests use @run driver/timeout=xxxx. Maybe you
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> specify that and see if that fixes it? Let me know if that
>>>>>>>>>> works and I
>>>>>>>>>> can add it to the test.
>>>>>>>>> That seems to have an effect. But now I'm not patient enough
>>>>>>>>> to wait for
>>>>>>>> the test to finish.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the problem is that I'm using slow debug builds.
>>>>>>>>> But is there a chance to make the test quicker without losing
>>>>>>>>> coverage
>>>>>>>> significantly?
>>>>>>>>> I think the test is too slow this way to run it on a regular
>>>>>>>>> basis. We'd need to
>>>>>>>> spend dedicated machines for it.
>>>>>>>> We could remove the nested synchronized statements in the run()
>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>> so that we don't generate that much logging. We could also lower
>>>>>>>> LOOP_COUNT. I think the issue is also because we are running
>>>>>>>> LogTest
>>>>>>>> with multiple flag combinations. Not sure what we should touch
>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>> Maybe the synchronized statements, have only one or two and
>>>>>>>> test that
>>>>>>>> first?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Patricio
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Patricio Chilano <patricio.chilano.mateo at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 4. August 2020 17:47
>>>>>>>>>> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; David Holmes
>>>>>>>>>> <david.holmes at oracle.com>; hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net;
>>>>>>>>>> hotspot-jfr-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: RFR 8242263: Diagnose synchronization on
>>>>>>>>>> primitive wrappers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for fixing PPC and taking care of s390!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/20 11:18 AM, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Patricio,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest to use movl + testl for checking the access flag
>>>>>>>>>>> as for other
>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>>>> flags on x64.
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I'll change it to movl + testl and test it out before
>>>>>>>>>> sending v3.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> New version for PPC64 and s390 see below.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The test SyncOnPrimitiveWrapperTest produces hs_err files as
>>>>>>>> expected.
>>>>>>>>>> However, I'm getting timeout issues:
>>>>>>>>>>> timed out (timeout set to 120000ms, elapsed time including
>>>>>>>>>>> timeout
>>>>>>>>>> handling was 122372ms)
>>>>>>>>>>> Can we provide more time?
>>>>>>>>>> I see that some tests use @run driver/timeout=xxxx. Maybe you
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> specify that and see if that fixes it? Let me know if that
>>>>>>>>>> works and I
>>>>>>>>>> can add it to the test.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Patricio
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 77852e129401
>>>>>>>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_MacroAssembler_ppc.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_MacroAssembler_ppc.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:57 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_MacroAssembler_ppc.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 16:04:31 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -107,8 +107,8 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>> load_klass(Rscratch, Roop);
>>>>>>>>>>> - ld(Rscratch, in_bytes(Klass::access_flags_offset()),
>>>>>>>>>>> Rscratch);
>>>>>>>>>>> - andi(Rscratch, Rscratch, JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS);
>>>>>>>>>>> + lwz(Rscratch, in_bytes(Klass::access_flags_offset()),
>>>>>>>>>>> Rscratch);
>>>>>>>>>>> + testbitdi(CCR0, R0, Rscratch,
>>>>>>>>>>> exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS));
>>>>>>>>>>> bne(CCR0, slow_case);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 77852e129401 src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/interp_masm_ppc_64.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/interp_masm_ppc_64.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:57 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/interp_masm_ppc_64.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 16:04:31 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -912,8 +912,8 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>> load_klass(tmp, object);
>>>>>>>>>>> - ld(tmp, in_bytes(Klass::access_flags_offset()), tmp);
>>>>>>>>>>> - andi(tmp, tmp, JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS);
>>>>>>>>>>> + lwz(tmp, in_bytes(Klass::access_flags_offset()), tmp);
>>>>>>>>>>> + testbitdi(CCR0, R0, tmp,
>>>>>>>>>>> exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS));
>>>>>>>>>>> bne(CCR0, slow_case);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 77852e129401 src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/macroAssembler_ppc.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/macroAssembler_ppc.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:57 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/macroAssembler_ppc.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 16:04:31 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2838,8 +2838,8 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>> load_klass(temp, oop);
>>>>>>>>>>> - ld(temp, in_bytes(Klass::access_flags_offset()), temp);
>>>>>>>>>>> - andi(temp, temp, JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS);
>>>>>>>>>>> + lwz(temp, in_bytes(Klass::access_flags_offset()), temp);
>>>>>>>>>>> + testbitdi(CCR0, R0, temp,
>>>>>>>>>>> exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS));
>>>>>>>>>>> bne(CCR0, cont);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 77852e129401
>>>>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/s390/c1_MacroAssembler_s390.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/c1_MacroAssembler_s390.cpp Tue
>>>>>>>>>>> Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:57 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/c1_MacroAssembler_s390.cpp Tue
>>>>>>>>>>> Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 16:04:31 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -91,6 +91,12 @@
>>>>>>>>>>> // Save object being locked into the BasicObjectLock...
>>>>>>>>>>> z_stg(obj, Address(disp_hdr,
>>>>>>>> BasicObjectLock::obj_offset_in_bytes()));
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + load_klass(Z_R1_scratch, obj);
>>>>>>>>>>> + testbit(Address(Z_R1_scratch,
>>>>>>>>>>> Klass::access_flags_offset()),
>>>>>>>>>> exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS));
>>>>>>>>>>> + z_btrue(slow_case);
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> if (UseBiasedLocking) {
>>>>>>>>>>> biased_locking_enter(obj, hdr, Z_R1_scratch,
>>>>>>>>>>> Z_R0_scratch, done,
>>>>>>>>>> &slow_case);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 77852e129401 src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interp_masm_s390.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interp_masm_s390.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:57
>>>>>>>>>> 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interp_masm_s390.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>> 16:04:31
>>>>>>>>>> 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1000,6 +1000,12 @@
>>>>>>>>>>> // Load markWord from object into displaced_header.
>>>>>>>>>>> z_lg(displaced_header,
>>>>>>>>>>> oopDesc::mark_offset_in_bytes(), object);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + load_klass(Z_R1_scratch, object);
>>>>>>>>>>> + testbit(Address(Z_R1_scratch,
>>>>>>>>>>> Klass::access_flags_offset()),
>>>>>>>>>> exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS));
>>>>>>>>>>> + z_btrue(slow_case);
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> if (UseBiasedLocking) {
>>>>>>>>>>> biased_locking_enter(object, displaced_header, Z_R1,
>>>>>>>>>>> Z_R0, done,
>>>>>>>>>> &slow_case);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 77852e129401
>>>>>>>>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/s390/macroAssembler_s390.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/macroAssembler_s390.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:57 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/macroAssembler_s390.cpp Tue Aug 04
>>>>>>>>>> 16:04:31 2020 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3358,6 +3358,12 @@
>>>>>>>>>>> // Load markWord from oop into mark.
>>>>>>>>>>> z_lg(displacedHeader, 0, oop);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (DiagnoseSyncOnPrimitiveWrappers != 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + load_klass(Z_R1_scratch, oop);
>>>>>>>>>>> + testbit(Address(Z_R1_scratch,
>>>>>>>>>>> Klass::access_flags_offset()),
>>>>>>>>>> exact_log2(JVM_ACC_IS_BOX_CLASS));
>>>>>>>>>>> + z_btrue(done);
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> if (try_bias) {
>>>>>>>>>>> biased_locking_enter(oop, displacedHeader, temp,
>>>>>>>>>>> Z_R0, done);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list