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

Mario Torre neugens at redhat.com
Thu Oct 10 11:30:56 UTC 2019 

Right, makes sense.

Ok to push.

Cheers,
Mario

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 7:51 AM Denghui Dong
<denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>    Those comments were not introduced by this patch, but the original jfr patch just as Andrey said.
>    It's necessary to confirm those comments are correct, I think we can do this task later and create a new jira issue to track it.
>    What's your comments ?
>
> Cheers
> Denghui Dong
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:Andrey Petushkov <andrey at azul.com>
> Send Time:2019年10月10日(星期四) 01:14
> To:"Jaroslav Bachorík" <jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com>; 董登辉(卓昂) <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>; jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject:Re: [8u] [JFR] RFR: JFR backports from 11.0.4
>
> Hi Denghui, All,
>
> The patch looks good for me as well.
> Regarding those XXX, in fact none of them were introduced by Denghui. Instead they are coming from current
> incubator code and in fact it's deed of mine, sorry for that. They indicate a few places where I was a tiny bit
> hesitant making changes to original (jdk11) JFR implementation. As such it would be nice if someone could review
> them for correctness before removal
>
> Thanks,
> Andrey
>
> > On 9 Oct 2019, at 18:23, 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

More information about the jdk8u-dev mailing list