Backporting an AsyncGetCallTrace patch to OpenJDK6

[Joe Darcy]

Hello.

As of OpenJDK 6 build 14, we've upgraded to HotSpot 11 from HotSpot 10:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2008-December/000281.html

In the near future, we'll be upgrading again from HS 11 to HS 14; so I 
don't think there is a lot of motivation to take the ported 
AsyncGetCallTrace patch back to older HotSpot trains at this point.

-Joe

On 12/31/08 05:34 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote:
> I still hope this patch will be accepted.
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote:
>   
>> With the patch, I haven't seen it crash in my experience.
>>
>> Hiroshi
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tom Rodriguez
>> <Thomas.Rodriguez at sun.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by collector. But as far as I can tell
>>>> AsyncGetCallTrace
>>>> is a lot more stable and shows more stack frames with the patch. If Sun
>>>> folks
>>>> have tests for it, it'd be great if someone can run them against this
>>>> patch.
>>>>         
>>> I was only referring to testing it with a profiling tool and the SunStudio
>>> collector is the only one I know of that uses AsyncGetCallTrace.  When you
>>> say "a lot more stable" do you mean it doesn't crash or it crashes less?
>>>
>>> tom
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Hiroshi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hi, Any comment about the patch itself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> 2008/9/11 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>> 2008/9/11 Daniel D. Daugherty <Daniel.Daugherty at sun.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I don't see any change to the HS_ version numbers in our
>>>>>>>>>>> patch to switch from OpenJDK6 b11's to OpenJDK7 b24's HotSpot.
>>>>>>>>>>> Given OpenJDK6 was derived from something like b20, I guess this is
>>>>>>>>>>> not that strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> JDK7-B24 has the following values:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HS_MAJOR_VER=12
>>>>>>>>>>> HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>>>>>>>>> HS_BUILD_NUMBER=01
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe stated earlier in this thread that OpenJDK6 is based on
>>>>>>>>>>> HSX-10 so its values should not be the same. For 1.6.0_07,
>>>>>>>>>>> I see:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HS_MAJOR_VER=10
>>>>>>>>>>> HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>>>>>>>>> HS_BUILD_NUMBER=23
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm...
>>>>>>>>>> Then either Gary's HotSpot patch doesn't update that file or
>>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK6
>>>>>>>>>> is not based on the same as this 1.6.0_07 thing you mention.
>>>>>>>>>> I'll try and have a closer look later.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Support Free Java!
>>>>>>>>>> Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
>>>>>>>>>> http://openjdk.java.net
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
>>>>>>>>>> Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>>>>> IcedTea6 contains:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HS_MAJOR_VER=10
>>>>>>>>> HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>>>>>>> HS_BUILD_NUMBER=19
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IcedTea/b33 contains:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HS_MAJOR_VER=14
>>>>>>>>> HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>>>>>>> HS_BUILD_NUMBER=01
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> icedtea-hotspot-6b11-7b24.patch only updates the src code and not
>>>>>>>>> make/hotspot_version
>>>>>>>>> so it's actually worryingly building a different version of HotSpot
>>>>>>>>> from the one it thinks it is.
>>>>>>>>> It will actually be 12-0-01 as you state, but will report 10-0-19.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Overall, it would be better to always build against the most recent
>>>>>>>>> stable HotSpot tree if possible
>>>>>>>>> rather than the one provided by the build drop.  Do we know what the
>>>>>>>>> most stable would be?
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> Generally, the HotSpot in the base OpenJDK 6 should be pretty stable.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> policy I've implemented,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2008-February/000005.html,
>>>>>>>> for the HotSpot in OpenJDK 6 is to track fixes in the 6 update
>>>>>>>> releases,
>>>>>>>> augmented with some other fixes for license corrections, gcc build
>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>> (and the occasional Eclipse crash).  The HotSpot in the base OpenJDK 6
>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> base is very close to the HotSpot in the currently shipping 6 update
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> ... and going forward we will have much closer coordination between the
>>>>>>> OpenJDK 6 and 6 update HotSpots since we'll be using the same source
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> both; so the version information should be updated consistently, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2008-September/000150.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>           
>>>