1-line review request: 7194607 VerifyLocalVariableTableOnRetransformTest.sh fails after JSR-292 merge
Christian Thalinger
christian.thalinger at oracle.com
Thu Nov 1 10:13:58 PDT 2012
Thanks. -- Chris
On Oct 31, 2012, at 5:46 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
> I've created the hotspot/runtime CR:
> https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8002087
>
> Assigned to myself.
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
> On 10/31/12 2:13 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>> Thanks, Christian.
>>
>> I'm not comfortable to fix it as a part of 7194607.
>> One question is what tests are need to be run to verify possible fixes.
>>
>> I'll open a separate CR under hotspot/runtime to track the Interpreter issues related to max_stack.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Serguei
>>
>> On 10/31/12 10:54 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 2012, at 4:25 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, it seems there are some suspicious fragments in the interpreter code.
>>>> Christian, could you, please, check and comment the fragments below?
>>>>
>>>> This is how the Method::max_stack() is defined:
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/method.hpp:
>>>>
>>>> int verifier_max_stack() const { return _max_stack; }
>>>> int max_stack() const { return _max_stack + extra_stack_entries(); }
>>>> void set_max_stack(int size) { _max_stack = size; }
>>>> . . .
>>>> static int extra_stack_entries() { return EnableInvokeDynamic ? 2 : 0; }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The following code fragments are unaware that the method->max_stack() returns _max_stack + extra_stack_entries() :
>>>>
>>>> src/cpu/sparc/vm/cppInterpreter_sparc.cpp:
>>>> src/cpu/sparc/vm/cppInterpreter_x86.cpp:
>>>>
>>>> static int size_activation_helper(int callee_extra_locals, int max_stack, int monitor_size) {
>>>> . . .
>>>> const int extra_stack = 0; //6815692//Method::extra_stack_entries(); ????
>>>> return (round_to(max_stack +
>>>> extra_stack +
>>> Remove extra_stack.
>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>> }
>>>> . . .
>>>> void BytecodeInterpreter::layout_interpreterState(interpreterState to_fill,
>>>> . . .
>>>> int extra_stack = 0; //6815692//Method::extra_stack_entries(); ????
>>>> to_fill->_stack_limit = stack_base - (method->max_stack() + 1 + extra_stack);
>>> Remove extra_stack (but keep the +1; see comment nearby).
>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> src/cpu/sparc/vm/templateInterpreter_sparc.cpp:
>>>>
>>>> static int size_activation_helper(int callee_extra_locals, int max_stack, int monitor_size) {
>>>> . . .
>>>> const int max_stack_words = max_stack * Interpreter::stackElementWords;
>>>> return (round_to((max_stack_words
>>>> //6815692//+ Method::extra_stack_words() ????
>>> The comment needs to be removed.
>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> At the size_activation_helper call sites the second parameter is usually passed as method->max_stack().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> src/cpu/x86/vm/templateInterpreter_x86_32.cpp:
>>>> src/cpu/x86/vm/templateInterpreter_x86_64.cpp:
>>>>
>>>> int AbstractInterpreter::size_top_interpreter_activation(Method* method) {
>>>> . . .
>>>> const int extra_stack = Method::extra_stack_entries();
>>>> const int method_stack = (method->max_locals() + method->max_stack() + extra_stack) *
>>> Remove extra_stack.
>>>
>>>> Interpreter::stackElementWords;
>>>> . . .
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/interpreter/oopMapCache.cpp:
>>>>
>>>> void OopMapForCacheEntry::compute_map(TRAPS) {
>>>> . . .
>>>> // First check if it is a method where the stackmap is always empty
>>>> if (method()->code_size() == 0 || method()->max_locals() + method()->max_stack() == 0) {
>>>> _entry->set_mask_size(0);
>>>> } else {
>>>> . . .
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Above, if the invokedynamic is enabled then the method()->max_stack() can not be 0.
>>>> We need to check it if this fact does not break the fragment.
>>> That means we are always generating oop maps even if we wouldn't need them. Let me think more about this...
>>>
>>> -- Chris
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm still looking at other places...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Serguei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/12 10:41 AM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> I have a plan to look at it, at least for other serviceablity code.
>>>>> It'd be good if someone from the runtime or compiler team checked it too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Serguei
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/12 10:37 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>> Thumbs up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is someone going to do an audit for similar missing changes
>>>>>> from max_stack() (not max_size()) to verifier_max_stack()?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/12 1:30 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please, review the fix for CR:
>>>>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7194607
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CR in JIRA:
>>>>>>> https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-7194607
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Open webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2012/7194607-JVMTI-max_size
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This issue is caused by the changes in the oops/method.hpp for invokedynamic (JSR 292).
>>>>>>> Now the max_stack() adds +2 to the original code attribute stack size if invokedynamic is enabled.
>>>>>>> The verifier_max_stack() must be used in the jvmtiClassFileReconstituter.cpp
>>>>>>> instead of the max_size() to get the code attribute stack size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Serguei
>>>>>>>
>>
>
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list