JVM/TI code review request (XS and M) (7182152)
Karen Kinnear
karen.kinnear at oracle.com
Wed Feb 6 11:54:51 PST 2013
Thank you Dan - this is much better and sets a good model for the rest of us.
thanks,
Karen
On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> Adding other alias and people back onto the thread...
>
> Thanks for the re-review!
>
>
> On 2/6/13 6:41 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>
>> This is good that you added the INCLUDE_JVMTI. I didn't think it'd add that much space, but it a good change.
>
> I didn't think it would add much space either, but...
>
> It gave me a chance to check out the MinimalVM stuff a bit and
> it serves to identify those pieces of code as being associated
> with JVM/TI.
>
> Karen and Serguei, when you get the chance, please re-review.
>
> Again, thanks for the re-review!
>
> Dan
>
>
>> Thumbs up!
>> Coleen
>>
>> On 2/6/2013 12:59 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> The JPDA stack testing finished with no new regressions on HSX-23.6,
>>> HSX-24 or HSX-25. The HSX-24 version of the fix has been pushed.
>>>
>>> I've updated the HSX-25 version of the fix due to Karen's comments
>>> about the MinimalVM configuration in Code Review Round 1. In this
>>> latest round for HSX-25, I've made use of the INCLUDE_JVMTI define
>>> to limit the exposure of new tracing code to configurations that
>>> include JVM/TI support. The MinimalVM does not support JVM/TI so
>>> none of the new code needs to be included there. While I was at it,
>>> I also excluded some other JVM/TI RedefineClasses() support code
>>> from the MinimalVM config that I hadn't previously touched.
>>>
>>> In short, none of the functionality has been changed in this round.
>>> Just the way it is built or not built has been changed.
>>>
>>> Here is the URL for the latest HSX-25 webrev:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/2-hsx25/
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for more comments, suggestions or questions.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/4/13 2:08 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I've updated the fix due to comments in Code Review Round 0.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a summary of changes made to the various files:
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.cpp (HSX-23.6, HSX-24)
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCache.cpp (HSX-25)
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp
>>>> - removed the new RC_TRACE_NO_CR() macro calls at Coleen's request;
>>>> these files are outside of JVM/TI RedefineClasses proper so the
>>>> tracing/debug style should not be dictated by JVM/TI RedefineClasses
>>>> style that is currently in use
>>>> - did not touch the existing RC_TRACE... macros in the file; removing
>>>> the existing macro calls would be outside the scope of this bug
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.cpp (HSX-23.6, HSX-24)
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCache.cpp (HSX-25)
>>>> - copy a comment from ConstantPoolCacheEntry::is_interesting_method_entry()
>>>> to ConstantPoolCacheEntry::check_no_old_or_obsolete_entries()
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp
>>>> - Copied the new comment intended to prevent the "break" from
>>>> re-materializing again from klassItable::adjust_method_entries()
>>>> to klassVtable::adjust_method_entries(); yes, I'm paranoid.
>>>>
>>>> In the HSX-25 version only:
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/metadata.hpp
>>>> - revert changes
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.cpp
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp
>>>> - wrap uses of is_valid() in NOT_PRODUCT macro as appropriate
>>>>
>>>> Here are the URLs for the updated webrevs:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/1-hsx23.6/
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/1-hsx24/
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/1-hsx25/
>>>>
>>>> The JPDA stack testing that I started on Friday is still running on
>>>> WinXP so I'm blocked for checking the recompile due to these changes.
>>>> I'll start a recompile on Solaris X86, but that will take some time.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, in advance, for more comments, suggestions or questions.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/1/13 12:55 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a fix for the following JVM/TI bug:
>>>>>
>>>>> 7182152 Instrumentation hot swap test incorrect monitor count
>>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7182152
>>>>> https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-7182152
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix for the bug in the product code is one line:
>>>>>
>>>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp:
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -992,18 +1020,50 @@
>>>>> // RC_TRACE macro has an embedded ResourceMark
>>>>> RC_TRACE(0x00200000, ("itable method update: %s(%s)",
>>>>> new_method->name()->as_C_string(),
>>>>> new_method->signature()->as_C_string()));
>>>>> }
>>>>> - break;
>>>>> + // cannot 'break' here; see for-loop comment above.
>>>>> }
>>>>> ime++;
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> and is applicable to JDK7u10/HSX-23.6 and JDK7u14/HSX-24. Coleen
>>>>> already fixed the bug as part of the Perm Gen Removal (PGR) project
>>>>> in HSX-25. Yes, we found a 1-line bug fix buried in the monster PGR
>>>>> changeset. Many thanks to Coleen for her help in this bug hunt!
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the code in the webrevs are:
>>>>>
>>>>> - additional JVM/TI tracing code backported from Coleen's PGR changeset
>>>>> - additional JVM/TI tracing code added by me and forward ported to HSX-25
>>>>> - a new -XX:TraceRedefineClasses=16384 flag value for finding these
>>>>> elusive old or obsolete methods
>>>>> - exposure of some printing code to the PRODUCT build so that the new
>>>>> tracing is available in a PRODUCT build
>>>>>
>>>>> You might be wondering why the new tracing code is exposed in a PRODUCT
>>>>> build. Well, it appears that more and more PRODUCT bits deployments are
>>>>> using JVM/TI RedefineClasses() and/or RetransformClasses() at run-time
>>>>> to instrument their systems. This bug (7182152) was only intermittently
>>>>> reproducible in the WLS environment in which it occurred so I made the
>>>>> tracing available in a PRODUCT build to assist in the hunt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Raj from the WLS team has also verified that the HSX-23.6 version of
>>>>> fix resolves the issue in his environment. Thanks Raj!
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the URLs for the three webrevs:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/0-hsx23.6/
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/0-hsx24/
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/0-hsx25/
>>>>>
>>>>> I have run the following test suites from the JPDA stack on the
>>>>> JDK7u10/HSX-23.6 version of the fix with -XX:TraceRedefineClasses=16384
>>>>> specified:
>>>>>
>>>>> sdk-jdi
>>>>> sdk-jdi_closed
>>>>> sdk-jli
>>>>> vm-heapdump
>>>>> vm-hprof
>>>>> vm-jdb
>>>>> vm-jdi
>>>>> vm-jdwp
>>>>> vm-jvmti
>>>>> vm-sajdi
>>>>>
>>>>> The tested configs are:
>>>>>
>>>>> {Solaris-X86, WinXP}
>>>>> X {Client VM, Server VM}
>>>>> X {-Xmixed, -Xcomp}
>>>>> X {product, fastdebug}
>>>>>
>>>>> With the 1-liner fix in place, the new tracing code does not find any
>>>>> instances of this failure mode in any of the above test suites. Without
>>>>> the the 1-liner fix in place, the new tracing code finds one instance
>>>>> of this failure mode in the above test suites:
>>>>>
>>>>> test/java/lang/instrument/IsModifiableClassAgent.java
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two new tests that will be pushed to the JDK repos using
>>>>> a different bug ID (not yet filed):
>>>>>
>>>>> test/com/sun/jdi/RedefineAbstractClass.sh
>>>>> test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfaces.sh
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be a separate review request for the new tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently running the JPDA stack of tests on the JDK7u14/HSX-24
>>>>> and JDK8-B75/HSX-25 versions of the fix. That testing will likely
>>>>> take all weekend to complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any comments and/or suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list