[EXT] Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] [Roland Westrelin] Re: Aarch64 port for ZGC, so far

[Stuart Monteith]

Thanks for taking a look. I agree with the separation, so I'll split
out the refactoring from the functional change for 64-bit literals.

BR,
   Stuart

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 20:58, Derek White <derekw at marvell.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Stuart,
>
> That's great news!
>
> My vote is for separate patches where possible.  It will make pinpointing any potential bugs in the checkins easier, as well as reviewing.
>
> Actually, I hate to do this, but I'll go further...
>
> I think that the oop64 patch could be broken up into patch (A) that adds the patch_info_offset() method, and patch (B) that supports oop64 on aarch64.
>
> Patch (A) is a small fix across many files, and if it's correct(*), it's Correct by Trivial Inspection (CBTI). Could be checked in soon with the understanding that this is required for upcoming patch.
>
> Patch (B) requires some deeper thought, and reviewing is a bit easier with a smaller file set to track. And it should be (mostly) in aarch64 code, not shared.
>
> I'm not sure if the compiler folks need this level of factoring, but it is quite common in the GC team.
>
>  - Derek
>
> (*) I went looking for a caller of new patch_info_offset() method and didn't find one across any of the patches. It looks like it was used in an earlier version of the patch?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: aarch64-port-dev <aarch64-port-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On
> > Behalf Of Stuart Monteith
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 1:26 PM
> > To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>; Roland Westrelin
> > <rwestrel at redhat.com>
> > Cc: zgc-dev at openjdk.java.net; aarch64-port-dev <aarch64-port-
> > dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] [Roland Westrelin] Re: Aarch64 port
> > for ZGC, so far
> >
> > External Email
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hello,
> >    Thanks to Andrew, C1 is now working. I've updated the patches to as they
> > are today.
> >
> > The patches are here:
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smonteith/zgc/20190314/
> >
> > I'm doing some more testing and then move onto RFRs.
> >
> > I have a choice of rolling Roland's membar patch into the ZGC patch and
> > adding him as a contributor, or I can raise a separate Java bug and submit it
> > as a separate patch. Are there preferences?
> >
> > BR,
> >    Stuart
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 16:34, Stuart Monteith <stuart.monteith at linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >    I find when running with -XX:TieredStopAtLevel=1 and ZGC enabled it
> > > fails when running with Lucene's indexing demo
> > > "org.apache.lucene.demo.IndexFiles" or SPECjbb2015.
> > > I tried javac, and other simple examples, but I haven't managed to
> > > find anything simple that provokes the issue.
> > >
> > > I've uploaded this here:
> > >   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smonteith/zgc/Lucene-demo.tar.xz
> > >
> > > If you have the appropriate java command on your patch, if you run
> > > "index.sh" with a directory of files index as the parameter, it will
> > > reproduce the problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > BR,
> > >    Stuart
> > >
> > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 16:19, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 3/7/19 11:36 AM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
> > > > > There is an issue with C1 - the changes in "8217717: ZGC: Broken
> > > > > oop map in C1 load barrier stub" did regress things somewhat
> > > > > causing crashes with stale references. However, As patching on
> > > > > aarch64 C1 isn't really supported, I'm not satisfied it was
> > > > > working correctly before. Patching lea may impractical as things stand
> > today.
> > > >
> > > > I can't get it to fail. Please tell me exactly what I have to do to
> > > > demonstrate the C1 failure.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Haley
> > > > Java Platform Lead Engineer
> > > > Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> > > > EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671