On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 21:25:19 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Yi-Fan Tsai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Apply man changes
>
> src/hotspot/share/code/codeCache.cpp line 1809:
>
>> 1807: }
>> 1808:
>> 1809: void CodeCache::w
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:13:11 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>> The current design of `write_perf_map` provides a clean and explicit
>> interface. The purpose of the function is evident from its signature: to
>> write a perf map into a specified file. This explicitness makes the code
>>
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 22:41:56 GMT, Yi-Fan Tsai wrote:
>> `jcmd Compiler.perfmap` uses the hard-coded file name for a perf map:
>> `/tmp/perf-%d.map`. This change adds an optional argument for specifying a
>> file name.
>>
>> `jcmd PID help Compiler.perfmap` shows the following usage.
>>
>>
>>
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 19:48:07 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Currently we don't record dependencies on redefined methods (i.e.
> `evol_method` dependencies) in JIT compiled methods if none of the
> `can_redefine_classes`, `can_retransform_classes` or
> `can_generate_breakpoint_events` JVMTI capab
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:37:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Currently we don't record dependencies on redefined methods (i.e.
>> `evol_method` dependencies) in JIT compiled methods if none of the
>> `can_redefine_classes`, `can_retransform_classes` or
>> `can_generate_breakpoint_events` JVMTI
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 21:26:41 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Currently we don't record dependencies on redefined methods (i.e.
>> `evol_method` dependencies) in JIT compiled methods if none of the
>> `can_redefine_classes`, `can_retransform_classes` or
>> `can_generate_breakpoint_events` JVMTI c
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 21:26:41 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Currently we don't record dependencies on redefined methods (i.e.
>> `evol_method` dependencies) in JIT compiled methods if none of the
>> `can_redefine_classes`, `can_retransform_classes` or
>> `can_generate_breakpoint_events` JVMTI c
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:00:51 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Currently we don't record dependencies on redefined methods (i.e.
>> `evol_method` dependencies) in JIT compiled methods if none of the
>> `can_redefine_classes`, `can_retransform_classes` or
>> `can_generate_breakpoint_events` JVMTI c
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:32:47 GMT, RacerZ wrote:
>> Volker Simonis has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fixed whitepspace in flag documentation
>
> Will this feature be incorporated into a lower version of JDK, like JDK 8?
@Ra
Backout of [JDK-8309271](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8309271) which has
known bugs, possible bugs and performance issues.
Found bugs:
- When refreshing `CompilerDirectivesAddDCmd::execute` will call
`DirectivesStack::hasMatchingDirectives(mh, true)` which only considers the
compiler dir
On Mon, 13 May 2024 13:52:17 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote:
> Are there any high severity problems caused by the original PR? Especially
> not in the new functionality. Minor issues could be probably addressed
> without backing out the entire functionality.
Yes, there are:
> 1. Usually directives
On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:34:50 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote:
> So there are cases when new functionality doesn't work as expected (I don't
> see any other users impacted). Why not file bugs for those cases and estimate
> their impact?
Do you know any users using the new functionality?
-
On Mon, 13 May 2024 13:03:26 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
> Backout of [JDK-8309271](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8309271) which
> has known bugs, possible bugs and performance issues. REDO work is tracked by
> [JDK-8331749](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8331749).
&
On Mon, 13 May 2024 16:29:35 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> do you have tests which shows issues you listed in description?
Here is a jtreg test:
- `refresh_control.02.txt`
[
{
match: "serviceability.dcmd.compiler.DirectivesRefreshTest::callable",
c2: {
PrintOptoAssembly: true
On Mon, 13 May 2024 13:03:26 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
> Backout of [JDK-8309271](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8309271) which
> has known bugs, possible bugs and performance issues. REDO work is tracked by
> [JDK-8331749](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8331749).
&
On Mon, 13 May 2024 16:29:35 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> How you found these issues?
I've been backporting JDK-8309271 to downstream 17 and 21. As compilations
happens in background but a test from JDK-8309271 runs with background
compilation off, I asked myself what might happen with backgr
On Mon, 13 May 2024 13:03:26 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
> Backout of [JDK-8309271](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8309271) which
> has known bugs, possible bugs and performance issues. REDO work is tracked by
> [JDK-8331749](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8331749).
&
On Mon, 13 May 2024 22:43:44 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> What if instead of backing out we will use an experimental JVM flag:
>> `XX:+CompilerDirectivesRefreshSupport`?
>
>> What if instead of backing out we will use an experimental JVM flag:
>> `XX:+CompilerDirectivesRefreshSupport`?
>
> I
On Mon, 13 May 2024 13:03:26 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
> Backout of [JDK-8309271](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8309271) which
> has known bugs, possible bugs and performance issues. REDO work is tracked by
> [JDK-8331749](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8331749).
&
We can exclude Java methods from compilation with compiler directives. Later we
can remove those directives.
This PR fixes a bug that after removal of those directives Java methods don't
become compilable.
A regression test is added.
Tested fastdebug build with a new test and tier1 tests.
-
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:05:03 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
> We can exclude Java methods from compilation with compiler directives. Later
> we can remove those directives.
> This PR fixes a bug that after removal of those directives Java methods don't
> become compilable.
&g
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:05:28 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
> Test `runtime/BootstrapMethod/BSMCalledTwice.java` might have failed on
> Windows x64 because of the change.
I managed to reproduce the failure. The test fails because of my change.
There is a data race:
Thread1: cleanin
build with a new test and tier1 tests.
Evgeny Astigeevich has updated the pull request incrementally with one
additional commit since the last revision:
Fix data race
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19637/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/1963
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:30:25 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
>> A Java method can become non-compilable if there are issues with its
>> compilation or if its compiled version causes problems. Additionally, a
>> method can be marked as non-compilable using a compile com
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:15:31 GMT, Damon Fenacci wrote:
>> Evgeny Astigeevich has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix data race
>
> src/hotspot/share/compiler/compileBroker.cpp line 1336:
>
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:29:05 GMT, Damon Fenacci wrote:
>>> Test `runtime/BootstrapMethod/BSMCalledTwice.java` might have failed on
>>> Windows x64 because of the change.
>>
>> I managed to reproduce the failure. The test fails because of my change.
>> There is a data race:
>>
>> Thread1: cleani
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:43:56 GMT, Yi-Fan Tsai wrote:
> `jcmd Compiler.perfmap` uses the hard-coded file name for a perf map:
> `/tmp/perf-%d.map`. This change adds an option for specifying a file name.
>
> The help message of Compiler.perfmap:
>
> Compiler.perfmap
> Write map file for Linux pe
27 matches
Mail list logo
