[15?] RFR (S): 8249192: MonitorInfo stores raw oops across safepoints

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 7/22/20 8:11 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
>
> On 7/22/20 4:21 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 22.07.20 02:42, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>
>>> I've looked at the incremental update and I am happy with that.
>>
>> In the response to Serguei's review there were some comment updates 
>> and new webrevs.
>>
>>>
>>> I also, prompted by you mentioning it, took a deeper look at the 
>>> biased-locking code to ensure it also keeps the MonitorInfo's 
>>> thread-confined, and to see whether the handshake versions could 
>>> themselves be susceptible to interference from safepoints (which 
>>> they can't as far as I can determine). And that all seems fine.
>>
>> Thanks for looking at this again in more detail. I couldn't spot 
>> problems either, but this is not code I am proficient with.
>>
>>> As per offline discussions I know that there has been an alternate 
>>> proposal for a completely localized fix in the stackwalker code that 
>>> simply retrieves the list of monitors, uses the length to create the 
>>> array, then re-retrieves the list of monitors to populate the array 
>>> (the length of which can't change as we are dealing with the current 
>>> thread). My only concern with that approach is the performance 
>>> impact if we have deep stacks with lots of monitors. There is a 
>>> microbenchmark for StackWalker in the repo:
>>>
>>> open/test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/lang/StackWalkBench.java
>>>
>>> but it doesn't test anything to do with monitor usage.
>>
>> Ultimately I am good with either change, as long as it's being fixed. 
>> I initially thought about this solution too, but had the same 
>> concerns. Stacks can be really deep particularly with some frameworks 
>> (maybe not fully materialized) but idk the actual impact of doing the 
>> walk twice.
>>
>> Potentially you could have different fixes for different versions.
>
> Yes.  These patches look good to me for JDK 15 and 16.  We'll open an 
> RFE to consider the alternate patch after more performance testing for 
> future versions, but this fixes the problem and will not be difficult 
> to backport to JDK 11.

Coleen,

So it looks like you, David and Serguei are comfortable with the larger
patch for both JDK15 and JDK16. That's good news! It's also good news
that you think this not be difficult to backport to JDK11.

For a post RDP2 push to JDK15, the bug's "Fix in Release" value will
have to be changed to 15 and a request for approval made. I've attached
Mark R's email about the process. Follow the links and submit the
approval requests.

As for the alternate fix, I only came up with it as a lower risk alternative
that could be pushed this late in the JDK15 cycle and would be easy to push
to JDK11u-oracle. Right now it appears that we won't need it, but just in
case we get push back on JDK15 approval, I'll finish the due diligence
testing.

Thomas, thanks for tackling this issue and for your patience in the review
process. Also, thanks for the GC debugging patch!

Dan


>
> Thank you!
> Coleen
>>
>> Thanks,
>>   Thomas
>

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com
Subject: JDK 15 is now in Rampdown Phase Two
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Size: 4521
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20200722/7f5336b8/JDK15isnowinRampdownPhaseTwo.eml>