[11u]: 8262121: [11u] Redo 8244287: JFR: Methods samples have line number 0

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi,

Jaroslav, the test is by you.
I just fixed the change by you that was backed out in 11.0.9.
That change already contained the test.
But at that time there was a real error in the fix.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244287
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2020-June/003312.html

History ��

Should I count you as reviewer too, Jaroslav?

Best regards
  Goetz.


From: Jaroslav Bachorík <jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:21 PM
To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
Cc: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: [11u]: 8262121: [11u] Redo 8244287: JFR: Methods samples have line number 0

Hi Christop,

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 4:45 PM Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com<mailto:christoph.langer at sap.com>> wrote:
Hi Goetz,

it would have been nice if there was an incremental webrev compared to the previous version. But I think I've figured out that the increment was a fix in the test. ��

So, it seems that the update has indeed fixed the test failures that we observed before, hence it should be ok.

The indentation in line 82 of TestStackFrameLineNumbers looks a bit awkward, you should fix that. But no need for a further webrev.

82                       System.out.println("=== Frame: " + frame);

Question to Jaroslav: It seems like the test is a valuable regression test. Shouldn't tit be added to jdk/jdk head as well?

Goetz is the original author of the test - I just fixed the corner case where no samples were generated due to low activity. But yes, it would definitely make sense to have this test in jdk/jdk head too.

-JB-


Best regards
Christoph


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk-updates-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net>> On
> Behalf Of Lindenmaier, Goetz
> Sent: Freitag, 12. März 2021 11:41
> To: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>>
> Cc: 'Jaroslav Bachorík' <jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com<mailto:jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com>>
> Subject: RE: [11u]: 8262121: [11u] Redo 8244287: JFR: Methods samples have
> line number 0
>
> Hi,
>
> We had seen sporadic test failures in the test added with this
> change.
> Jaroslav proposed a fix. Thanks!  Since applying that fix I did not see
> the problem any more.
>
> This new webrev contains the fix by Jaroslav:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr21/8262121-Redo-8244287-
> JFR_line_no_0-jdk11/02/
>
> Best regards,
>   Goetz.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lindenmaier, Goetz
> > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 2:18 PM
> > To: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>>
> > Subject: [11u]: 8262121: [11u] Redo 8244287: JFR: Methods samples have
> > line number 0
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We tried to backport "8244287: JFR: Methods samples have line number 0"
> > to 11.0.9 [1].  The first downport had to be backed out, though [2].
> >
> > I now propose this change for the issue. Please review.
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr21/8262121-Redo-8244287-
> > JFR_line_no_0-jdk11/01/
> > I have verified that we do not see the crashes we saw with the
> > original change.
> >
> > New Issue:
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8262121
> >
> > Original Change:
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244287
> > Previous downport:
> >  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253576
> > Backout:
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253813
> >
> > I don't understand why the previous backport is
> > flagged as 11.010. It was pushed on 2020-09-23,
> > which was in the 11.0.9 time frame. But we had
> > issues with the automatic tagging in the past, probably
> > this is the reason.
> >
> > I will only push this to 11.0.12.
> > I would also adapt the backport information so that
> > JBS shows that this is only fixed in 11.0.12.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >   Goetz
> >
> > [1] https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2020-
> > June/003312.html
> > [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2020-
> > September/003886.html