JVM/TI code review request (XS and M) (7182152)
Daniel D. Daugherty
daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
Wed Feb 6 06:05:43 PST 2013
Adding other alias and people back onto the thread...
Thanks for the re-review!
On 2/6/13 6:41 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> This is good that you added the INCLUDE_JVMTI. I didn't think it'd
> add that much space, but it a good change.
I didn't think it would add much space either, but...
It gave me a chance to check out the MinimalVM stuff a bit and
it serves to identify those pieces of code as being associated
with JVM/TI.
Karen and Serguei, when you get the chance, please re-review.
Again, thanks for the re-review!
Dan
> Thumbs up!
> Coleen
>
> On 2/6/2013 12:59 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> The JPDA stack testing finished with no new regressions on HSX-23.6,
>> HSX-24 or HSX-25. The HSX-24 version of the fix has been pushed.
>>
>> I've updated the HSX-25 version of the fix due to Karen's comments
>> about the MinimalVM configuration in Code Review Round 1. In this
>> latest round for HSX-25, I've made use of the INCLUDE_JVMTI define
>> to limit the exposure of new tracing code to configurations that
>> include JVM/TI support. The MinimalVM does not support JVM/TI so
>> none of the new code needs to be included there. While I was at it,
>> I also excluded some other JVM/TI RedefineClasses() support code
>> from the MinimalVM config that I hadn't previously touched.
>>
>> In short, none of the functionality has been changed in this round.
>> Just the way it is built or not built has been changed.
>>
>> Here is the URL for the latest HSX-25 webrev:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/2-hsx25/
>>
>> Thanks, in advance, for more comments, suggestions or questions.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/13 2:08 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I've updated the fix due to comments in Code Review Round 0.
>>>
>>> Here is a summary of changes made to the various files:
>>>
>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.cpp (HSX-23.6, HSX-24)
>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCache.cpp (HSX-25)
>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp
>>> - removed the new RC_TRACE_NO_CR() macro calls at Coleen's request;
>>> these files are outside of JVM/TI RedefineClasses proper so the
>>> tracing/debug style should not be dictated by JVM/TI
>>> RedefineClasses
>>> style that is currently in use
>>> - did not touch the existing RC_TRACE... macros in the file; removing
>>> the existing macro calls would be outside the scope of this bug
>>>
>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.cpp (HSX-23.6, HSX-24)
>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCache.cpp (HSX-25)
>>> - copy a comment from
>>> ConstantPoolCacheEntry::is_interesting_method_entry()
>>> to ConstantPoolCacheEntry::check_no_old_or_obsolete_entries()
>>>
>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp
>>> - Copied the new comment intended to prevent the "break" from
>>> re-materializing again from klassItable::adjust_method_entries()
>>> to klassVtable::adjust_method_entries(); yes, I'm paranoid.
>>>
>>> In the HSX-25 version only:
>>> src/share/vm/oops/metadata.hpp
>>> - revert changes
>>>
>>> src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.cpp
>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp
>>> - wrap uses of is_valid() in NOT_PRODUCT macro as appropriate
>>>
>>> Here are the URLs for the updated webrevs:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/1-hsx23.6/
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/1-hsx24/
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/1-hsx25/
>>>
>>> The JPDA stack testing that I started on Friday is still running on
>>> WinXP so I'm blocked for checking the recompile due to these changes.
>>> I'll start a recompile on Solaris X86, but that will take some time.
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for more comments, suggestions or questions.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/1/13 12:55 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I have a fix for the following JVM/TI bug:
>>>>
>>>> 7182152 Instrumentation hot swap test incorrect monitor count
>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7182152
>>>> https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-7182152
>>>>
>>>> The fix for the bug in the product code is one line:
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp:
>>>>
>>>> @@ -992,18 +1020,50 @@
>>>> // RC_TRACE macro has an embedded ResourceMark
>>>> RC_TRACE(0x00200000, ("itable method update: %s(%s)",
>>>> new_method->name()->as_C_string(),
>>>> new_method->signature()->as_C_string()));
>>>> }
>>>> - break;
>>>> + // cannot 'break' here; see for-loop comment above.
>>>> }
>>>> ime++;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and is applicable to JDK7u10/HSX-23.6 and JDK7u14/HSX-24. Coleen
>>>> already fixed the bug as part of the Perm Gen Removal (PGR) project
>>>> in HSX-25. Yes, we found a 1-line bug fix buried in the monster PGR
>>>> changeset. Many thanks to Coleen for her help in this bug hunt!
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the code in the webrevs are:
>>>>
>>>> - additional JVM/TI tracing code backported from Coleen's PGR
>>>> changeset
>>>> - additional JVM/TI tracing code added by me and forward ported to
>>>> HSX-25
>>>> - a new -XX:TraceRedefineClasses=16384 flag value for finding these
>>>> elusive old or obsolete methods
>>>> - exposure of some printing code to the PRODUCT build so that the new
>>>> tracing is available in a PRODUCT build
>>>>
>>>> You might be wondering why the new tracing code is exposed in a
>>>> PRODUCT
>>>> build. Well, it appears that more and more PRODUCT bits deployments
>>>> are
>>>> using JVM/TI RedefineClasses() and/or RetransformClasses() at run-time
>>>> to instrument their systems. This bug (7182152) was only
>>>> intermittently
>>>> reproducible in the WLS environment in which it occurred so I made the
>>>> tracing available in a PRODUCT build to assist in the hunt.
>>>>
>>>> Raj from the WLS team has also verified that the HSX-23.6 version of
>>>> fix resolves the issue in his environment. Thanks Raj!
>>>>
>>>> Here are the URLs for the three webrevs:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/0-hsx23.6/
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/0-hsx24/
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7182152-webrev/0-hsx25/
>>>>
>>>> I have run the following test suites from the JPDA stack on the
>>>> JDK7u10/HSX-23.6 version of the fix with
>>>> -XX:TraceRedefineClasses=16384
>>>> specified:
>>>>
>>>> sdk-jdi
>>>> sdk-jdi_closed
>>>> sdk-jli
>>>> vm-heapdump
>>>> vm-hprof
>>>> vm-jdb
>>>> vm-jdi
>>>> vm-jdwp
>>>> vm-jvmti
>>>> vm-sajdi
>>>>
>>>> The tested configs are:
>>>>
>>>> {Solaris-X86, WinXP}
>>>> X {Client VM, Server VM}
>>>> X {-Xmixed, -Xcomp}
>>>> X {product, fastdebug}
>>>>
>>>> With the 1-liner fix in place, the new tracing code does not find any
>>>> instances of this failure mode in any of the above test suites.
>>>> Without
>>>> the the 1-liner fix in place, the new tracing code finds one instance
>>>> of this failure mode in the above test suites:
>>>>
>>>> test/java/lang/instrument/IsModifiableClassAgent.java
>>>>
>>>> There are two new tests that will be pushed to the JDK repos using
>>>> a different bug ID (not yet filed):
>>>>
>>>> test/com/sun/jdi/RedefineAbstractClass.sh
>>>> test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfaces.sh
>>>>
>>>> There will be a separate review request for the new tests.
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently running the JPDA stack of tests on the JDK7u14/HSX-24
>>>> and JDK8-B75/HSX-25 versions of the fix. That testing will likely
>>>> take all weekend to complete.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any comments and/or suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list