Hi Vladimir, Thanks for taking a look.
I have updated the bug with a link to 8005849, thanks. "Is it possible to prepare a jtreg test which will use AsynchGetCallTrace and catch such situations in a future?" I agree that having a way to check for regression here would be ideal. I also realize that creating reliable regression tests for this part of the code is a non-trivial undertaking. For example, the code showing this particular regression needs to be a call tree with intertwined Java/JNI/native code. For one, a regression test for AsyncGetCallTrace needs, besides logic for AsyncGetCallTrace thread suspension itself, also involve a target using native code, and this means compiling native code etc etc.... I will create a separate bug/enhancement to track investigation efforts as to what kind of regression tests can be done here (maybe the native parts can be done in the VM itself and then using RegisterNatives() to hook up a test case...hmm...) Thanks again for reviewing /Markus -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Kozlov Sent: den 27 november 2013 19:04 To: Markus Gronlund; [email protected]; [email protected]; serviceability-dev Subject: Re: RFR(S): 8028412 - AsyncGetCallTrace() is broken on x86 in JDK7u40 Hi, Markus I think the bug report should link to 8005849 which introduced this additional check and regression. Is it possible to prepare a jtreg test which will use AsynchGetCallTrace and catch such situations in a future? The fix itself looks good. Thanks, Vladimir On 11/27/13 1:47 AM, Markus Gronlund wrote: > Greetings, > > Kindly asking for reviews for the following change: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8028412 > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgronlun/8028412/webrev01/ > > Description: > > AsynchGetCallTrace() uses platform specific code for stack frame traversals. > > On x86, there currently exist a defensive construct that practically > disallows stack traversal over entry_frame code stubs, such as > StubRoutine(1) frames: > > src/cpu/x86/vm/frame_x86.cpp b/src/cpu/x86/vm/frame_x86.cpp: > > bool frame::safe_for_sender(JavaThread* thread) { > > . > > if (!Interpreter::contains(_pc) && _cb->frame_size() <= 0) { > //assert(0, "Invalid frame_size"); > > return false; > } > > . > > Since entry frames (such as StubRoutine(1)) have a frame size of 0, > the code returns prematurely. > > Fix is to move this frame size check post handling of is_entry_frame(), > where the code_stubs are processed. > > Testing completed: > > Sun Studio Profiler reproducer testcase > > SpecJBB2005 > > Kitchensink > > Thanks > Markus >
