On 4/18/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vladimir, thanks, this is what I observed as well. They are coming from a same bug, and the patch will be submitted in one or two hours, so I don't worry about it. :-)
Excellent! In this case I vote to use GCv5 by default. thanks, Vladimir PS I did not test it on Win x86_64, but I hope it will work OK.
Thanks, xiaofeng On 4/18/07, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is just my statistics: > > WinXP, ia32: > Classlib tests: passed > DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests: > java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test; > java.lang.reflect.Field5Test; > java.lang.reflect.Method5Test; > java.lang.ThreadTest; > org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest > > Linux, ia32: > Classlib tests: java.awt.font.LineBreakMeasurerTest failed > DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests: > java.lang.ThrowableTest – hang (int mode) > java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test; > java.lang.reflect.Field5Test; > java.lang.reflect.Method5Test; > java.lang.ThreadTest; > org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest > > Linux, em64t: > Classlib tests: list of failed tests > java.awt.CanvasRTest – hang > javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicListUITest - hang > javax.swing.JSliderTest > javax.swing.JTableRTest > javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicFileChooserUITest > javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicFormattedTextFieldUITest > javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicIconFactoryTest > > DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests: > java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test; > java.lang.reflect.Field5Test; > java.lang.reflect.Method5Test; > java.lang.ThreadTest; > org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest > and > All JVMTI tests using interpreter > ------------- > SIGSEGV in VM code. > Stack trace: > 0: jthread_monitor_enter > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/thread/src/thread_java_monitors.c:145) > 1: vm_monitor_enter_default > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/thread/mon_enter_exit.cpp:115) > 2: vm_monitor_enter_wrapper(ManagedObject*) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/interpreter/interp_imports.cpp:30) > 3: Opcode_MONITORENTER(StackFrame&) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:2277) > 4: org/apache/harmony/fortress/security/SecurityUtils.putContext(Ljava/lang/Thread;Ljava/security/AccessControlContext;)V > (SecurityUtils.java:76) > 5: interpreterInvokeStatic > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:3318) > 6: Opcode_INVOKESTATIC(StackFrame&) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:2105) > 7: java/lang/Thread.<init>(Ljava/lang/ThreadGroup;Ljava/lang/String;JJIZ)V > (Thread.java:253) > 8: interpreter_execute_method(Method*, jvalue*, jvalue*) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:3211) > 9: JIT_execute_method > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interp_exports.cpp:167) > 10: DrlEMImpl::executeMethod(_jmethodID*, jvalue*, jvalue*) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/em/src/DrlEMImpl.cpp:510) > 11: ExecuteMethod > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/em/src/em_intf.cpp:44) > 12: vm_execute_java_method_array(_jmethodID*, jvalue*, jvalue*) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jit/ini.cpp:56) > 13: vm_create_jthread > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/vm_init.cpp:560) > 14: vm_attach_internal(JNIEnv_External**, _jobject**, > JavaVM_External*, _jobject*, char*, unsigned char) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/vm_init.cpp:601) > 15: attach_current_thread > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jni/jni.cpp:1519) > 16: AttachCurrentThreadAsDaemon(JavaVM_External*, void**, void*) > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jni/jni.cpp:1548) > 17: finalizer_thread_func > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/finalizer_thread.cpp:204) > 18: thread_start_proc > (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/thread/src/thread_native_basic.c:716) > 19: start_thread (??:-1) > <end of stack trace> > ------------- > > thanks, Vladimir > > On 4/18/07, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that we make GCv5 default a week before the milestone since it > > gives us some benefits. > > And if we discover any stability or other issues we always can switch > > it back before the milestone. > > > > SY, Alexey > > > > 2007/4/18, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > In addition to specs and eclipse, there are the tests that come with > > > "build test". Are there any more tests we are worried about? > > > > > > I understand the risk of switching before an event, but we will have > > > to do it at some point. Not much point in writing it and then not > > > using it. Doing it still gives us a few weeks before Java One to see > > > if there are problems. How about running it as default for a week > > > before we decide? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/07, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's quite risky to switch right before the show. > > > > Xiao-Feng, what workloads you tried with gcv5 except specs and eclipse? > > > > > > > > + > > > > I'm working on "lazy resolution" task in both JITs now and going to submit > > > > the patch this week for > > > > review. I think its commit should be delayed for a few weeks until > > > > JavaOne is finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/18/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 4/18/07, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Do you think we should switch before "end of month"? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's my suggestion. > > > > > > > > > > > It's certainly a risk, but what is the value in the switch? > > > > > > > > > > The risk is minimal since GCv5 is rather stable, and to the least we > > > > > have command line option to switch back; but the value is substantial > > > > > since people can have an advanced, scalable, modular, flexible, high > > > > > performance GC, which I think both runtime researchers and users would > > > > > like to try, based on my interactions with Harmony users. > > > > > > > > > > To demo Harmony, GC is one component that we'd like to have a good > > > > > story to tell. GCv5 can tell a good story since it has subsumed almore > > > > > all the recent advances in GC area (for stop-the-world GC), and has a > > > > > variable of innovations. Importantly, GCv5 can differentiate > > > > > multi-core platforms with its scalable parallelisms. :-) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > xiaofeng > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > > > > > 2007/4/18, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > GCv5 might be one "major" that we want to put as default GC in DRLVM. > > > > > > > It still has some issues pending, but overall I think the stability is > > > > > > > good enough for a switch next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since GC is designed with good modularity, we can simply choose which > > > > > > > GC implementation to use in command line with > > > > > > > '-XX:vm.dlls=the_gc_module.dll(so)". This is neat that helps the > > > > > > > switch a lot: If GCv5 has some problem running a workload, we can > > > > > > > specify -XX:vm.dlls=gc_cc.dll in command line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far the known bugs in GCv5 are not with some workloads, but related > > > > > > > with certain test cases for finalizer and VM threading. And I think > > > > > > > they are going to be resolved before next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > xiaofeng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/16/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Just a reminder, as discussed in various threads, we shall aim to > > > > > > > > produce a solid build for Windows and Linux x86 (at least) at the > > > > > end of > > > > > > > > next week; so that we have something to demo at ApacheCon and > > > > > JavaOne > > > > > > > > that is a true reflection of our current capabilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, the Milestone will be simply a snapshot, carrying our > > > > > usual > > > > > > > > caveats. The idea is that with conference talks taking place we may > > > > > > > > expect a few people to download a build and try it around that time, > > > > > so > > > > > > > > being in the middle of a major restructuring would potentially do us > > > > > an > > > > > > > > injustice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most commits still seem to be on-going bug fixing, so that's all > > > > > > > > goodness. If you are planning on anything 'major' please ensure > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is enough time to get it stable, or please wait until after the > > > > > > > > milestone build. Similarly, if there is anything that is currently > > > > > > > > 'broken' that you think really needs fixing for that stability, > > > > > please > > > > > > > > shout here on the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are still two weeks to go, I think the paranoia about not > > > > > causing > > > > > > > > regressions will really kick-in next week :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mikhail Fursov > > > > > > > > > > -- http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
