[9] RFR (L): 8059623: JEP-JDK-8043304: Test task: command line options tests

Tobias Hartmann tobias.hartmann at oracle.com
Wed Dec 10 12:39:51 UTC 2014


Hi Filipp,

On 10.12.2014 13:21, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
> Tobias,
> 
> as I wrote you in a private message, until a fix for 8064940 doesn't affect
> the way options are processed there is no need to update proposed tests.
> 
> I've filed 8067135 for new tests that will verify actual alignment of code heaps.

Okay, sounds good.

Thanks,
Tobias

> 
> Regards,
> Filipp.
> 
> On 12/08/2014 06:18 PM, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>> On 12/08/2014 06:12 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>> On 08.12.2014 13:25, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>> Hi Tobias,
>>>>
>>>> thank you for suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think we should take code heap size alignment into account.
>>>>
>>>> What alignment policy you're going to implement for 8064940?
>>> My current fix just large-page-aligns the code heap sizes.
>>>
>>>> Maybe instead of checking that values are in
>>>> (value - page_size, value + page_size) interval we should just check
>>>> that all values were aligned up to page_size?
>>> Yes, that's a better solution. However, I don't know how to figure out the
>>> available page sizes from Java code.
>> There's Unsafe::pageSize() method. Also, I saw a RFR on hs-rt list
>> about to add such method to WB API, but it need to check how well
>> it is going to work with large pages.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Filipp.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Filipp.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/08/2014 12:37 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>>> Hi Filipp,
>>>>>
>>>>> the actual size of a code heap is affected by alignment and therefore may be
>>>>> different to the size set via the command line. For example, on Sparc we
>>>>> have to
>>>>> make sure that the code heaps are large page (4MB) aligned to reduce the
>>>>> number
>>>>> of ITLB misses (will be introduced with [1]).
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should check if the actual size of the code heap is within
>>>>> boundaries,
>>>>> i.e., within the specified size +- (large) page size.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064940
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05.12.2014 18:06, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please take a look at CLI tests for segmented code cache (JDK-8059623).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are three new tests:
>>>>>> compiler/codecache/cli/
>>>>>>     codeheapsize/TestCodeHeapSizeOptions
>>>>>>     printcodecache/TestPrintCodeCacheOption
>>>>>>     TestSegmentedCodeCacheOption
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All tests consist of several test cases aimed to verify different aspects
>>>>>> of options' processing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These tests partially overlapped with c/c/CheckSegmentedCodeCache test,
>>>>>> but add additional value - these tests actually check final values
>>>>>> of tested options and verifies PrintCodeCache output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug id: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059623
>>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/8059623/webrev.00/
>>>>>> Testing: manual & automated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This change depends on:
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054892: Improve compiler's CLI
>>>>>> tests
>>>>>> error reporting
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066440: Various changes in
>>>>>> testlibrary
>>>>>> for JDK-8059613
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Filipp.
>>
> 


More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list