RFR: 8231289: Disentangle JvmtiRawMonitor from ObjectMonitor and clean it up

Tue Oct 1 23:27:00 UTC 2019

On 10/1/19 6:21 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Coleen,
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> On 2/10/2019 7:04 am, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8231289/webrev/src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp.frames.html 
>>
>>
>> I think it's odd that PROPER_TRANSITIONS looked like the right thing 
>> to do, but we always took the alternate path with the large comment 
>> about why it is evil.  Can we have an RFE to move this special 
>> transition to interfaceSupport.inline.hpp as a supported transition, 
>> so it is with the other ones? So we don't miss it if we changed more 
>> things in the transitions. 
>
> I suppose we could - but I honestly don't think it is worth the 
> effort. Once this is disentangled from ObjectMonitor we can blissfully 
> ignore it and should never need to change it. The transition from one 
> safepoint-safe state to another is safe as the comment notes, and not 
> really "evil" IMO. IIRC we make the same observation elsewhere about 
> moving between safe states.

I wonder how many other places in the VM we've sprinkled around the code 
to change thread states.
>
>> Should this transition check for NoSafepointVerifier, for example?
>
> I have no idea what the NSV would mean in this context. JavaThreads 
> using raw monitors have no interaction with safepoints whilst using 
> them. The thread is always in a safepoint-safe state and so ignored by 
> the safepoint logic. We don't care how many safepoints might occur 
> whilst executing this code.

You're right, we're changing from native to blocked so yes, it doesn't 
need to check that safepoints are ok.
>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8231289/webrev/src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.hpp.frames.html 
>>
>>
>>   39 // ParkEvent instead.  Beware, however, that the JVMTI code
>>    40 // knows about ObjectWaiters, so we'll have to reconcile that 
>> code.
>>    41 // See next_waiter(), first_waiter(), etc.
>>
>> Comment should be removed.
>
> No that is about JVMTI, not JVMTI raw monitors. JVMTI uses 
> ObjectWaiter for reporting on monitor usage.

That's really confusing.
>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8231289/webrev/src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiRawMonitor.cpp.frames.html 
>>
>>
>> 148 void JvmtiRawMonitor::SimpleExit (Thread * Self) {
>>
>> 128 QNode Node (Self) ;
>>
>> 153 QNode * w ;
>>
>> 162 guarantee (w ->TState == QNode::TS_ENTER, "invariant") ;
>>
>>
>> Can you fix the style problems in the lines you changed, like these?  
>> Fixing the style in _changed_ code doesn't distract from the code 
>> review (having the old style does!)
>
> I'm happy to do a full style cleanup on this code later, but mixing 
> old and new styles just seems more distracting to me. I emulate the 
> existing style on the lines I change.

Do you have an RFE to clean this up?

thanks,
Coleen
>
>> This looks like a nice cleanup, and does not appear to change the 
>> what the code does, but someone who understands the locking code 
>> should also review it.
>
> Thanks again for taking a look.
>
> David
> -----
>
>> Thanks,
>> Coleen
>>
>> On 9/30/19 6:52 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> ping!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 24/09/2019 3:09 pm, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8231289
>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8231289/webrev/
>>>>
>>>> The earlier attempt to rewrite JvmtiRawMonitor as a simple wrapper 
>>>> around PlatformMonitor proved not so simple and ultimately had too 
>>>> many issues due to the need to support Thread.interrupt.
>>>>
>>>> I'd previously stated in the bug report:
>>>>
>>>> "In the worst-case I suppose we could just copy ObjectMonitor to a 
>>>> new class and have JvmtiRawMonitor continue to extend that (with 
>>>> some additional minor adjustments) - or even just inline it all as 
>>>> needed."
>>>>
>>>> but hadn't looked at it in detail. Richard Reingruber did look at 
>>>> it and pointed out that it is actually quite simple - we barely use 
>>>> any actual code from ObjectMonitor, mainly just the state. So 
>>>> thanks Richard! :)
>>>>
>>>> So this change basically copies or moves anything needed by 
>>>> JvmtiRawMonitor from ObjectMonitor, breaking the connection between 
>>>> the two. We also copy and simplify ObjectWaiter, turning it into a 
>>>> QNode internal class. There is then a lot of cleanup that was 
>>>> applied (and a lot more that could still be done):
>>>>
>>>> - Removed the never implemented/used PROPER_TRANSITIONS ifdefs
>>>> - Fixed the disconnect between the types of non-JavaThreads 
>>>> expected by the upper layer code and lower layer code
>>>> - cleaned up and simplified return codes
>>>> - consolidated code that is identical for JavaThreads and 
>>>> non-JavaThreads (e.g. notify/notifyAll).
>>>> - removed used of TRAPS/THREAD where not appropriate and replaced 
>>>> with "Thread * Self" in the style of the rest of the code
>>>> - changed recursions to be int rather than intptr_t (a "fixme" in 
>>>> the ObjectMonitor code)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have not changed the many style flaws with this code:
>>>> - Capitalized names
>>>> - extra spaces before ;
>>>> - ...
>>>>
>>>> but could do so if needed. I wanted to try and keep it more obvious 
>>>> that the fundamental functional code is actually unmodified.
>>>>
>>>> There is one aspect that requires further explanation: the notion 
>>>> of current pending monitor. The "current pending monitor" is stored 
>>>> in the Thread and used by a number of introspection APIs for things 
>>>> like finding monitors, doing deadlock detection, etc. The 
>>>> JvmtiRawMonitor code would also set/clear itself as "current 
>>>> pending monitor". Most uses of the current pending monitor 
>>>> actually, explicitly or implicitly, ignore the case when the 
>>>> monitor is a JvmtiRawMonitor (observed by the fact the 
>>>> mon->object() query returns NULL). The exception to that is 
>>>> deadlock detection where raw monitors are at least partially 
>>>> accounted for. To preserve that I added the notion of "current 
>>>> pending raw monitor" and updated the deadlock detection code to use 
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> The test:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/RawMonitorWait/rawmnwait005/rawmnwait005.cpp 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> was updated because I'd noticed previously that it was the only 
>>>> test that used interrupt with raw monitors, but was in fact broken: 
>>>> the test thread is a daemon thread so the main thread could 
>>>> terminate the VM immediately after the interrupt() call, thus you 
>>>> would never know if the interruption actually worked as expected.
>>>>
>>>> Testing:
>>>>   - tiers 1 - 3
>>>>   - vmTestbase/nsk/monitoring/  (for deadlock detection**)
>>>>   - vmTestbase/nsk/jdwp
>>>>   - vmTestbase/nsk/jdb/
>>>>   - vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/
>>>>   - vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/
>>>>   - serviceability/jvmti/
>>>>   - serviceability/jdwp
>>>>   - JDK: java/lang/management
>>>>
>>>> ** There are no existing deadlock related tests involving 
>>>> JvmtiRawMonitor. It would be interesting/useful to add them to the 
>>>> existing nsk/monitoring tests that cover synchronized and JNI 
>>>> locking. But it's a non-trivial enhancement that I don't really 
>>>> have time to do.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>> -----
>>