1-line review request: 7194607 VerifyLocalVariableTableOnRetransformTest.sh fails after JSR-292 merge

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Thanks, Christian.

I'm not comfortable to fix it as a part of 7194607.
One question is what tests are need to be run to verify possible fixes.

I'll open a separate CR under hotspot/runtime to track the Interpreter 
issues related to max_stack.


Thanks,
Serguei

On 10/31/12 10:54 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2012, at 4:25 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>
>> Ok, it seems there are some suspicious fragments in the interpreter code.
>> Christian, could you, please, check and comment the fragments below?
>>
>> This is how the Method::max_stack() is defined:
>>
>> src/share/vm/oops/method.hpp:
>>
>>    int  verifier_max_stack() const                { return _max_stack; }
>>    int           max_stack() const                { return _max_stack + extra_stack_entries(); }
>>    void      set_max_stack(int size)              {        _max_stack = size; }
>>    . . .
>>    static int extra_stack_entries() { return EnableInvokeDynamic ? 2 : 0; }
>>
>>
>> The following code fragments are unaware that the method->max_stack() returns _max_stack + extra_stack_entries()  :
>>
>> src/cpu/sparc/vm/cppInterpreter_sparc.cpp:
>> src/cpu/sparc/vm/cppInterpreter_x86.cpp:
>>
>> static int size_activation_helper(int callee_extra_locals, int max_stack, int monitor_size) {
>>    . . .
>>    const int extra_stack = 0; //6815692//Method::extra_stack_entries();      ????
>>    return (round_to(max_stack +
>>                     extra_stack +
> Remove extra_stack.
>
>>                     . . .
>> }
>> . . .
>> void BytecodeInterpreter::layout_interpreterState(interpreterState to_fill,
>>    . . .
>>    int extra_stack = 0; //6815692//Method::extra_stack_entries();               ????
>>    to_fill->_stack_limit = stack_base - (method->max_stack() + 1 + extra_stack);
> Remove extra_stack (but keep the +1; see comment nearby).
>
>>    . . .
>> }
>>
>>
>> src/cpu/sparc/vm/templateInterpreter_sparc.cpp:
>>
>> static int size_activation_helper(int callee_extra_locals, int max_stack, int monitor_size) {
>>    . . .
>>    const int max_stack_words = max_stack * Interpreter::stackElementWords;
>>    return (round_to((max_stack_words
>>                     //6815692//+ Method::extra_stack_words()                           ????
> The comment needs to be removed.
>
>>    . . .
>> }
>>
>> At the size_activation_helper call sites the second parameter is usually passed as method->max_stack().
>>
>>
>> src/cpu/x86/vm/templateInterpreter_x86_32.cpp:
>> src/cpu/x86/vm/templateInterpreter_x86_64.cpp:
>>
>> int AbstractInterpreter::size_top_interpreter_activation(Method* method) {
>>    . . .
>>    const int extra_stack = Method::extra_stack_entries();
>>    const int method_stack = (method->max_locals() + method->max_stack() + extra_stack) *
> Remove extra_stack.
>
>>                             Interpreter::stackElementWords;
>>    . . .
>> }
>>
>>
>> src/share/vm/interpreter/oopMapCache.cpp:
>>
>> void OopMapForCacheEntry::compute_map(TRAPS) {
>>    . . .
>>    // First check if it is a method where the stackmap is always empty
>>    if (method()->code_size() == 0 || method()->max_locals() + method()->max_stack() == 0) {
>>      _entry->set_mask_size(0);
>>    } else {
>>    . . .
>> }
>>
>> Above, if the invokedynamic is enabled then the method()->max_stack() can not be 0.
>> We need to check it if this fact does not break the fragment.
> That means we are always generating oop maps even if we wouldn't need them.  Let me think more about this...
>
> -- Chris
>
>>
>> I'm still looking at other places...
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Serguei
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/12 10:41 AM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>> I have a plan to look at it, at least for other serviceablity code.
>>> It'd be good if someone from the runtime or compiler team checked it too.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Serguei
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/30/12 10:37 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Thumbs up.
>>>>
>>>> Is someone going to do an audit for similar missing changes
>>>> from max_stack() (not max_size()) to verifier_max_stack()?
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/12 1:30 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, review the fix for CR:
>>>>>    http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7194607
>>>>>
>>>>> CR in JIRA:
>>>>>    https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-7194607
>>>>>
>>>>> Open webrev:
>>>>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2012/7194607-JVMTI-max_size
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>
>>>>> This issue is caused by the changes in the oops/method.hpp for invokedynamic (JSR 292).
>>>>> Now the max_stack() adds +2 to the original code attribute stack size if invokedynamic is enabled.
>>>>> The verifier_max_stack() must be used in the jvmtiClassFileReconstituter.cpp
>>>>> instead of the max_size() to get the code attribute stack size.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Serguei
>>>>>