[8u] [JFR] RFR: JFR backports from 11.0.4

Wed Oct 9 17:00:20 UTC 2019

This is because the API is slightly different, for instance
Threads::oops_do in 8214542 has only two arguments, similarly
DFSClosure extends ExtendedOopClosure rather than
BasicOopIterateClosure, which was a refactoring that happened in
8204540 I think.

We probably may want to remove those comments or make them more
explicit if really necessary.

Cheers,
Mario

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:25 PM Jaroslav Bachorík
<jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Denghui,
>
> I went through the diff of diffs and as far as I can see the backport is
> correct. But I saw a bunch of comment lines with 'XX' in them. Could you
> clean up those comments before final merge?
>
> Regards,
>
> -JB-
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:57 AM Denghui Dong <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >   Please review this backports (
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddong/19-10-9-jfr-backports/hotspot.00/) for:
> >     8214542: JFR: Old Object Sample event slow on a deep heap in debug
> > builds
> >     8228834: Regression caused by JDK-8214542 not installing complete
> > checkpoint data to candidates
> >     8229437: assert(is_aligned(ref, HeapWordSize)) failed: invariant
> >
> >  8214542 is quite a large patch.
> >   Please help me to push it to jdk8u-jfr-incubator if you think it's ok.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Denghui Dong
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From:Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com>
> > Send Time:2019年10月8日(星期二) 18:16
> > To:董登辉(卓昂) <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>
> > Cc:jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net>; Andrey Petushkov <
> > andrey at azul.com>
> > Subject:Re: [8u] [JFR] RFR: JFR backports from 11.0.4
> >
> > Hi Denghui,
> >
> > Ok to push to the incubator repository!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mario
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:00 AM Denghui Dong
> > <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >   Please review this backports for:
> > >     8224172: [BUG] assert(jfr_is_event_enabled(id)) failed: invariant
> > >     8216064: [BUG] -XX:StartFlightRecording:settings= doesn't work
> > properly
> > >     8226779: [TESTBUG] Test JFR API from Java agent
> > >     8214750: [BUG] Unnecessary <p> tags in jfr classes
> > >     8227011: Starting a JFR recording in response to JVMTI VMInit and /
> > or Java agent premain corrupts memory
> > >
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~wzhuo/8224172/hotspot.00/
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~wzhuo/8216064/jdk.00/
> > >
> > >   In fact, 8227011 is not in my plan, but
> > test/jdk/jfr/javaagent/TestPremainAgent.java (8216064) will
> > > be failed without 8227011, I also checked the mail list and found no
> > other people are backpoting it.
> > >
> > >   Please help me to push it to jdk8u-jfr-incubator if you think there's
> > no problem.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Denghui Dong
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From:Jaroslav Bachorík <jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com>
> > > Send Time:2019年9月16日(星期一) 17:53
> > > To:Andrey Petushkov <andrey at azul.com>
> > > Cc:董登辉(卓昂) <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>; jdk8u-dev <
> > jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net>; Ekaterina Vergizova <katya at azul.com>
> > > Subject:Re: [8u] [JFR] RFR: JFR backports from 11.0.4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:20 PM Jaroslav Bachorík <
> > jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > we are planning to port also the following patches
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210158 (already in 11u)
> > >
> > > This one turned out to be not applicable to jdk8u
> > >
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225797 (being worked on in
> > dev, will be backported to 11u adn jdk8u once done)
> > >
> > > This fix has been merged to dev and I started working on the backport to
> > 11u. So far it seems that the backport will be far from simple as it
> > touches many places which are fundamentally different in dev, 11u and 8u :/
> > >
> > > -JB-
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > -JB-
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 2:53 PM Andrey Petushkov <andrey at azul.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Denghui,
> > >
> > > Thank you. We'll take care of it then.
> > > The list of backports we're currently working on (for jdk8u incubator)
> > > was part of initial email. For convenience please find it below:
> > >
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185525: Add JFR event for
> > DictionarySizes
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213448: [TESTBUG] enhance
> > jfr/jvm/TestDumpOnCrash
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215727: Restore JFR thread
> > sampler loop to old / previous behavior
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8216283: Allow shorter method
> > sampling interval than 10 ms
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217362: Emergency dump does
> > not work when disk=false is set
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8219241: Provide basic
> > virtualization related info in the hs_error file on linux/windows x86_64
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8219566: JFR did not collect
> > call stacks when MaxJavaStackTraceDepth is set to zero
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8219997: [TESTBUG] Create test
> > for JFR events in Docker container: CPU, Memory and Process Info
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220293: Deadlock in JFR
> > string pool
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220555: JFR tool shows
> > potentially misleading message when it cannot access a file
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220657: JFR.dump does not
> > work when filename is set
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221569: JFR tool produces
> > incorrect output when both --categories and --events are specified
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221711: [TESTBUG] create more
> > tests for JFR in container environment
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222888: [TESTBUG]
> > docker/TestJFREvents.java fails due to "RuntimeException: JAVA_MAIN_CLASS_
> > is not defined"
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223438: add
> > VirtualizationInformation JFR event
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223599: minimal build fails
> > after JDK-8185525
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224217: RecordingInfo should
> > use textual representation of path
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225310: JFR crashed in
> > JfrPeriodicEventSet::requestProtectionDomainCacheTableStatistics()
> > >
> > > from these there are number of issues which are not yet ported to
> > jdk11u. We're on it,
> > > some of them have been pushed to jdk11u today. The rest are:
> > >
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185525: Add JFR event for
> > DictionarySizes
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223599: minimal build fails
> > after JDK-8185525
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225310: JFR crashed in
> > JfrPeriodicEventSet::requestProtectionDomainCacheTableStatistics()
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217362: Emergency dump does
> > not work when disk=false is set
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224217: RecordingInfo should
> > use textual representation of path
> > >
> > > we'll working on preparing review requests for those into jdk11u
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Andrey
> > >
> > > > On 10 Sep 2019, at 08:04, DDH <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Andrey,
> > > >
> > > >    Since you have already processed on 8223438([Enhancement] add
> > VirtualizationInformation JFR event),
> > > > we think that we don't need to do this issue again, we will remove it
> > from our list.
> > > >    By the way, can you send us a complete list that you will backport?
> > We can double check there are any repeated issues.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > DDH
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From:Andrey Petushkov <andrey at azul.com>
> > > > Send Time:2019年9月9日(星期一) 20:59
> > > > To:Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com>; 董登辉(卓昂) <
> > denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>
> > > > Cc:jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net>; Ekaterina Vergizova <
> > katya at azul.com>
> > > > Subject:Re: [8u] [JFR] RFR: JFR backports from 11.0.4
> > > >
> > > > Hi Denghui,
> > > >
> > > > Just a note, from the list below one backport (8223438: [Enhancement]
> > add VirtualizationInformation JFR event)
> > > > is already proposed for integration as part of Azul's effort ([1]).
> > > > However since it's not yet integrated into jdk11u there still work to
> > be done. We can do it, but if you'd like
> > > > and if you feel it's more convenient, you can take over. Anyway you
> > might want to check implementation of
> > > > the backport in the respective webrev ([2]). Please let us know, thanks
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Andrey
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2019-September/010204.html
> > > > [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetushkov/jfr_backports_katya/11.0.4/
> > > >
> > > > On 9 Sep 2019, at 12:37, Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Denghui,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the list looks good to me. As you mentioned, we should try first
> > > > the 11u backports and then backport to 8u.
> > > >
> > > > The process for the backport is highlighted here:
> > > >
> > https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/JDKUpdates/How+to+contribute+a+fix
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:07 AM DDH <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > hi all,
> > > >  We(Alibaba) picked some jfr backports as follows from JBS
> > > > (
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230624?jql=Subcomponent%20%3D%20jfr%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Fixed%20and%20fixVersion%20%3E%2011.0.6%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Backport),
> > we
> > > > think it is worth porting them to 8u/11u.
> > > >  We plan to backport them to 11u at first, and then to 8u, what's your
> > comment?
> > > >  If you think it is reasonable, we can provide our webrev of some
> > issues as soon as possible, and continue work on other issues.
> > > >
> > > > 8223396: [TESTBUG] several jfr tests do not clean up files created in
> > /tmp
> > > > 8225004: Remove invalid assertion in jfr_conditional_flush()
> > > > 8214542: [BUG] JFR: Old Object Sample event slow on a deep heap in
> > debug builds (Unresolved)
> > > > 8228834: [BUG] Regression caused by JDK-8214542 not installing
> > complete checkpoint data to candidates
> > > > 8228359: [TESTBUG]
> > jdk.jfr.e.g.c.TestGCHeapConfigurationEventWith32BitOops.java does not
> > expect MinHeapSize to be aligned to HeapAlignment
> > > > 8227605: [BUG] Kitchensink fails "assert((((klass)->trace_id() &
> > (JfrTraceIdEpoch::leakp_in_use_this_epoch_bit())) != 0)) failed: invariant"
> > > > 8227411: [BUG] TestTimeMultiple.java failed "assert(!lease()) failed:
> > invariant"
> > > > 8224172: [BUG] assert(jfr_is_event_enabled(id)) failed: invariant
> > > > 8212663: [BUG] Remove conservative at_safepoint assert when JFR writes
> > type sets during class unloading
> > > > 8216064: [BUG] -XX:StartFlightRecording:settings= doesn't work properly
> > > > 8214750: [BUG] Unnecessary <p> tags in jfr classes
> > > > 8213570: [TESTBUG] Update JFR sanity test set
> > > > 8226779: [TESTBUG] Test JFR API from Java agent
> > > > 8229189: [Enhancement] Improve JFR leak profiler tracing to deal with
> > discontiguous heaps
> > > > 8223438: [Enhancement] add VirtualizationInformation JFR event
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From:Andrey Petushkov <andrey at azul.com>
> > > > Send Time:2019年9月5日(星期四) 23:55
> > > > To:Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc:jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net <jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > > > Subject:Re: [8u] [JFR] RFR: JFR backports from 11.0.4
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mario,
> > > >
> > > > The following fixes apply trivially to jdk11u, so I've requested the
> > permission to backport per process.
> > > >
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220555
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221711
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222888
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221569
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8216283
> > > >
> > > > The rest require some rework, I'll post RFRs soon
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Andrey
> > > >
> > > > On 4 Sep 2019, at 17:47, Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Awesome, thanks for checking zero.
> > > >
> > > > As discussed offline, we have a few backports that were directly
> > > > backported to 8u without first being in 11u:
> > > >
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185525
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223599
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225310
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221711
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222888
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8216283
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220555
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217362
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221569
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224217
> > > >
> > > > A couple of those are wither being worked on or of interest for 11u,
> > > > so they should be fine, some aren't and while may not be critical I
> > > > think they are nice to have (like the container tests), so I would
> > > > expect all of them to be backported to 11u.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is a staging repository we may go ahead and push them and
> > > > work on the backport to 11 afterward, but I would prefer to not create
> > > > a discrepancy at this moment, so if possible we should work on the
> > > > backports to 11 first.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:09 PM Andrey Petushkov <andrey at azul.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mario,
> > > >
> > > > zero build is fine (e.g. mentioned method has default no-op
> > implementation in vm_version.hpp)
> > > >
> > > > Andrey
> > > >
> > > > On 4 Sep 2019, at 12:52, Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 03/09/2019 13:53, Andrey Petushkov wrote:
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > could you please consider the following set of backports of the JFR
> > fixes from 11.0.4 release into 8u incubator baseline:
> > > >
> > > > This seems good, the only nit I have now is that some of those changes
> > > > may break zero again, I think it may make sense to fix it in this patch
> > > > set instead of filing a dedicated bug report later.
> > > >
> > > > See for example:
> > > >
> > > > JDK-8219241
> > > >
> > > > +void VM_Version::print_platform_virtualization_info(outputStream* st)
> > {
> > > >
> > > > etc..
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mario Torre
> > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > > > Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> > > > 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mario Torre
> > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > > > Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> > > > 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mario Torre
> > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > > > Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> > > > 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mario Torre
> > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> > 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898

-- 
Mario Torre
Associate Manager, Software Engineering
Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898