[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 --- Comment #17 from Bill Torpey --- Created attachment 170348 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=170348=edit offending instructions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 --- Comment #16 from Bill Torpey --- The offending instructions are not compiled - they are defined as inline asm in OpenJDK, specifically in src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64_log.cpp (attached). The only thing I can tell from the executable file (/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-11.0.4.11-0.el7_6.x86_64/bin/java) is that it has a dependency on GLIBC_2.2.5. FWIW, we get similar results with OpenJDK 17, as well as with Azul build of OpenJDK 11. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 --- Comment #13 from Bill Torpey --- Been testing for the past couple days, and it appears that the patch from https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439#c10 is working fine for us -- thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 --- Comment #12 from Bill Torpey --- Hi all -- back from the long holiday here in US. Will try suggestions and post back with results. Thanks for all the help! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 --- Comment #6 from Bill Torpey --- The odd thing is that the SIGILL is only triggered on the X5670 CPU -- the i7-4770R does not trigger the SIGILL (exact same code, OS, etc.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 --- Comment #4 from Bill Torpey --- Created attachment 169753 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=169753=edit associated hs_err_pid file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 --- Comment #3 from Bill Torpey --- had to truncate the file (actual size ~350MB) -- hope this helps -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 Bill Torpey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wallstp...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Bill Torpey --- Created attachment 169752 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=169752=edit sample valgrind file (snipped for size) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 487439] New: SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487439 Bug ID: 487439 Summary: SIGILL in JDK11, JDK17 Classification: Developer tools Product: valgrind Version: 3.15 SVN Platform: RedHat Enterprise Linux OS: Linux Status: REPORTED Severity: normal Priority: NOR Component: memcheck Assignee: jsew...@acm.org Reporter: wallstp...@gmail.com Target Milestone: --- In the process of upgrading from JDK8 to JDK11 we are seeing consistent crashes when running under valgrind, similar to below. We've tried a number of builds, including "plain vanilla", Azul and Oracle builds of JDK11 and JDK17. valgrind crashes consistently when running on Xeon 5670 cpu's, but not when running on i7-4770R (both running CentOS 7.6). valgrind versions 3.15, 3.19 and 3.23 all exhibit the same behavior. The application appears to run fine on both platforms when NOT running under valgrind. Note that we're also asking on OpenJDK forums. TIA for any help/suggestions! # # A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment: # # SIGILL (0x4) at pc=0x170d1795, pid=2190035, tid=2190037 # # JRE version: OpenJDK Runtime Environment Zulu17.50+19-CA (17.0.11+9) (build 17.0.11+9-LTS) # Java VM: OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Zulu17.50+19-CA (17.0.11+9-LTS, compiled mode, tiered, compressed oops, compressed class ptrs, g1 gc, linux-amd64) # Problematic frame: # v ~StubRoutines::libmLog # # Core dump will be written. Default location: /var/log/cores/%e.core.2190035 # # If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit: # http://www.azul.com/support/ # --- S U M M A R Y Command Line: -Xshare:off -Dpython.cachedir.skip=true -enableassertions -XX:+PreserveFramePointer -verbose:gc -Xlog:gc:/home/btorpey/btlogs/abim/gc.log -XX:+PrintGCDetails -agentlib:jdwp=transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=8015 -Xcomp -verbose:class -Dappia.config.class=ConfFac -Dappia.whitelist=/tmp/btorpey/install/BusTalk/master/release/abim/config/whitelist.txt Route /tmp/btorpey/build/bustalk/master/abim/dev/appia MILLIT-10034 Host: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz, 24 cores, 188G, Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 8.7 (Ootpa) Time: Tue May 21 09:03:33 2024 EDT elapsed time: .010074 seconds (0d 0h 18m 31s) --- T H R E A D --- Current thread (0x058e1d00): JavaThread "main" [_thread_in_Java, id=2190037, stack(0x04053000,0x04154000)] Stack: [0x04053000,0x04154000], sp=0x04136748, free space=909k Native frames: (J=compiled Java code, j=interpreted, Vv=VM code, C=native code) v ~StubRoutines::libmLog J 8066 c1 java.math.BigInteger.()V java.base@17.0.11 (1688 bytes) @ 0x0fe6c996 [0x0fe6c360+0x0636] v ~StubRoutines::call_stub ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 393926] helpful to have report timestamp in wall-clock time
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393926 Bill Torpey changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #112452|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #1 from Bill Torpey --- Created attachment 114005 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=114005=edit improved patch file for 3.13.0 Sorry for the poor quality of previous patch file -- my editor trims trailing whitespace and I didn't notice all the superfluous "stuff". Attached is a much improved patch file that targets 3.13.0. Hopefully that will make this easier to apply. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the patch. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 393926] helpful to have report timestamp in wall-clock time
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393926 Bill Torpey changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|helpful to have reort |helpful to have report |timestamp in wall-clock |timestamp in wall-clock |time|time -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 393926] helpful to have reort timestamp in wall-clock time
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393926 Bill Torpey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wallstp...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 393926] New: helpful to have reort timestamp in wall-clock time
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393926 Bug ID: 393926 Summary: helpful to have reort timestamp in wall-clock time Product: valgrind Version: 3.12 SVN Platform: Other OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: NOR Component: general Assignee: jsew...@acm.org Reporter: wallstp...@gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 112452 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=112452=edit patch file to enable wall-clock timestamps There are times when it would be very helpful for valgrind to report wall-clock time instead of elapsed time in its reports -- e.g., to help sybchronize reports with application logs. The attached patch allows this. Pls let me know if there's a better way to submit patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 332876] valgrind (memcheck) hangs intermittently
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332876 Bill Torpey <wallstp...@gmail.com> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wallstp...@gmail.com --- Comment #15 from Bill Torpey <wallstp...@gmail.com> --- Just FYI -- the problem mentioned previously had remained through the 3.11 release -- however, with the 3.12.0 release it appears that it has resolved itself. I'm curious if there were any changes that you think may have caused this? >From the release notes, it looks like 361615 could be a candidate? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
