On 2/5/13 10:03 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 2/5/13 10:50 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Both tests look good, I do not see any issues yet.
What is missed is a comment explaining what happened
when the bug is not fixed and what correct behavior is expected.
Maybe it'd make sense to put bad and good output into the comment,
not everything, but the most important fragments.
It would help a lot to understand what test is doing.
Serguei,
Thanks for the review!
I put sample failures for both tests into the bug (8007420) a couple
of days ago. I'd prefer not to clutter up the test with sample outputs
if that's OK with you.
Thanks!
I'm still suggesting to put a comment explaining what happens in the
buggy case.
Something like:
"All multiple itable elements of the method *echo(String s)* must be
adjusted at a redefinition.
Otherwise, in incorrect implementation case (bug #) some of them may
become old and obsolete.
It should cause the test to fail: crashed, caught by a guaranty,
incorrect results, etc."
I'm sure you can find much better wording for the above.
BTW, I noticed that the test does not check a correctness of the output
so that if
it does not assert or crash then it will probably pass.
Would it make sense to check if the output does not have the sub-string
"version-0"
after the redefinition of the class
*RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesTarget*?
Thanks,
Serguei
Dan
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/1/13 3:55 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
And here is the webrev for the new tests (relative to JDK8-T&L):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8007420-webrev/0-jdk8-tl/
As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.
Dan
On 2/1/13 4:39 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> There are two new tests that will be pushed to the JDK repos using
> a different bug ID (not yet filed):
New bug is now filed:
8007420 add test for 6805864 to com/sun/jdi, add test for 7182152
to java/lang/instrument
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8007420
https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8007420
Of course, the tests cannot be pushed until the HSX changes have made
it into a promoted build and thus available to JDK8-T&L.
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
