RFR 8218167: nsk/jvmti/scenarios/sampling/SP02/sp02t003 fails

dean.long at oracle.com dean.long at oracle.com
Tue Mar 5 00:04:49 UTC 2019


Looks good!

dl

On 3/4/19 3:03 PM, Daniil Titov wrote:
> Hi Dean,
>
> You are right, test sp06t003 has the same problem. Please, review a new version of the change that fixes both tests. I checked other tests and no more tests use the this approach with "commonDepth".
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8218167/webrev.02
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8218167
>
> Thanks!
> --Daniil
>
> On 3/1/19, 9:14 PM, "serviceability-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of dean.long at oracle.com" <serviceability-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of dean.long at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>      Looks good, but what about sp06t003?  Doesn't it have the same problem?
>      Are there any other tests using similar logic?
>      
>      dl
>      
>      On 3/1/19 8:33 PM, Daniil Titov wrote:
>      > Please review the change that fix intermittent failure for test nsk/jvmti/scenarios/sampling/SP02/sp02t003 when running with Graal.
>      >
>      > The problem with the test here is that method checkThread() looks for the test method in the top "commonDepth" frames where "commonDepth" is a minimum of "frameCount" (returned by jvmti->GetFrameCount) and "frameStackSize"( returned by jvmti->GetStackTrace).
>      >
>      > If a compilation is triggered between these 2 calls then there are cases when "frameCount"  is 2,  "frameStackSize" is 4,  and the frame stack is as the following:
>      >
>      > [0] adjustCompilationLevel
>      > [1] adjustCompilationLevel
>      > [2] testedMethod
>      > [3] run
>      >
>      > In this case the test looks for the test method only in 2 top frames and fails.
>      >
>      > The fix ensures that the test iterates over all frames in the frame stack when looking for the test method.
>      >
>      > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8218167/webrev.01
>      > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8218167
>      >
>      > Thanks!
>      > --Daniil
>      >
>      >
>      
>      
>      
>
>



More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list