Hi Yumin,
Thanks for reviewing.
On 02/27/2018 11:05 PM, yumin qi wrote:
> Hi, Zhenyu
>
> It looks good to me. A minor suggest that in
> test_threadstack_tracking.cpp: 74
> In fact you can move the
> i++ above into the if block.
> Sine address of i only belongs to one committed region, if found the
> region, should only increased one time.
This is done on purpose, to verify that snapshot only finds one
committed region here, which is mapped stack segment.
Thanks,
-Zhengyu
>
> Thanks
> Yumin
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Zhengyu Gu <zgu at redhat.com
> <mailto:zgu at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Coleen.
>
> -Zhengyu
>
>
> On 02/23/2018 11:52 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
> <mailto:coleen.phillimore at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> This looks good but I hope someone else can review the os_linux
> and os_windows parts.
>
> I will sponsor this once the reviews are complete.
>
> thanks,
> Coleen
>
> On 2/21/18 10:49 AM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I rebased the patch after JDK-8196405[1]. Stefan's patch
> fixed virtual memory tracking issues I tried to address in
> early patch.
>
>
> In additions, I removed os::pd_committed_stack_size()
> methods as Coleen suggested. Also added new gtest.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191369
> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191369>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.03/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.03/>
>
> Test:
> hotspot_runtime, test-hotspot-gtest on Linux 64 with
> fastdebug and release builds.
>
>
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8196405/webrev.02/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8196405/webrev.02/>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Zhengyu
>
>
> On 02/12/2018 09:33 AM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>
>
>
> No, what you have is better. I dislike the
> delegation to the duplicate function signature in
> the pd_* layer. Can you make the
> os::committed_stack_size() functions in the
> platforms where this isn't supported just be empy
> functions?
>
> Okay.
>
>
> If there are platforms that don't have the ability
> to track committed regions of the mtThread stack,
> don't you still need the concept of all_committed?
>
> No, it exists for convenience. However, stack tracking
> code does need adjustment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Zhengyu
>
>
>
> thanks,
> Coleen
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Zhengyu
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>
> On 1/11/18 4:05 PM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Can I get second (R)eviewer for this?
> and I also need a sponsor.
>
> This is JDK11 bug.
>
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.02/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.02/>
> Bug: Bug:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191369
> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191369>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Zhengyu
>
>
>
>
> On 11/20/2017 01:46 PM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> I'm not sure about the logic
> of the test when you hit the the
> ENOMEM/uncommited case.
>
> + mincore_return_value =
> mincore(test_addr, page_sz,
> vec);
> +
> + if
> (mincore_return_value == -1
> || (committed_only && (vec[0] &
> 0x01) == 0)) {
> + // Page is not
> mapped/committed go up
> + // to find first
> mapped/committed page
> + if (errno != EAGAIN
> || (committed_only &&
> (vec[0] & 0x01) == 0)) {
> +
> assert(mincore_return_value
> != -1 || errno == ENOMEM,
> "Unexpected mincore errno");
>
> Should that not be
>
> + if
> ((mincore_return_value != -1
> && errno != EAGAIN) ||
> (committed_only && (vec[0] &
> 0x01) == 0)) {
>
>
> Sorry, that correction should
> have been:
>
> + if
> ((mincore_return_value == -1 &&
> errno != EAGAIN) ||
> (committed_only && (vec[0] &
> 0x01) == 0)) {
>
>
> Thanks for pointing out. Updated
> accordingly:
>
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.02/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.02/>
>
> -Zhengyu
>
>
> A successful call to mincore
> is not guaranteed to reset
> errno and it
> might by chance already have
> value EAGAIN before the call
> to mincore. If
> we happened to hit a mapped,
> committed page first time
> then the vec bit
> will be 1 and the code will
> loop and retest the same
> address. Unlikely
> but possible?
>
>
> The adjustment to the edge
> case logic now looks correct.
>
> The test case for
> verifying fixes for
> above two issues can be
> found
> here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/test_mmap.c
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/test_mmap.c>
>
>
> Yes, that verifies the edge
> case handling e.g. I ran it
> with 256 pages
> and with 127/8/9 mapped and
> it gave the right results.
>
> As mentioned in early
> email, new patch also
> contains implementation for
> Windows.
>
> Updated Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.01/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8191369/webrev.01/>
>
> Test:
>
> Reran hotspot_tier1
> tests on Windows x64 and
> Linux x64 (fastdebug and
> release)
>
> I have no idea about the
> validity of the Windows fix
> but the Linux one
> looks good modulo that if
> condition.
>
> regards,
>
>
> Andrew Dinn
> -----------
> Senior Principal Software
> Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd
> Registered in England and
> Wales under Company
> Registration No. 03798903
> Directors: Michael
> Cunningham, Michael ("Mike")
> O'Neill, Eric Shander
>
>
>
>
>
>