Thanks Kevin! I will push it.
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/27 16:42, Kevin Walls wrote:
Great, thanks Yasumasa. Don't worry, the language is not just you - it's often
unclear in other places. 8-) Sorry maybe I should have said you didn't need to
resubmit the webrev for that, but a retest is nice.
Thanks
Kevin
On 27/03/2020 02:49, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
All tests on submit repo has been passed.
(mach5-one-ysuenaga-JDK-8240956-3-20200327-0003-9753265)
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/27 9:07, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Thanks Kevin and Serguei! and sorry for my English...
I uploaded new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.05/
Diff from webrev.04 is here:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/submit/rev/d5f400d70e94
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/27 2:53, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Nice catch with the name "lastFrame".
I was also confused when reviewed this but did not come up with something
better.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/26/20 10:40, Kevin Walls wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
Oops, didn't catch this - I also had done some manual testing and in mach5 but
clearly not enough.
Generally I think this looks good.
"lastFrame" can mean last as in final, or last as in previous. "last" is one of those
annoying English words. Here it means final, if we get an Exception during processDwarf, use this to flag
that we should return null from sender(). "finalFrame" would be clearer to me, anything else
probably gets more verbose than you wanted.
Yes I like having the limit on the while loop in process_dwarf(), always
worried how sane the information is that we are parsing through.
Thanks!
Kevin
On 24/03/2020 23:47, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Thanks Serguei!
I will push it when I get second reviewer.
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/25 1:39, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
I'm okay with this update.
My mach5 test run for this patch is passed.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/23/20 17:08, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Thanks for your comment!
I uploaded new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.04/
Also I pushed it to submit repo:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/submit/rev/fade6a949bd1
On 2020/03/24 7:39, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
The mach5 tier5 testing looks good.
The serviceability/sa/ClhsdbPstack.java is failed without fix and is not failed
with it.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/23/20 10:18, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
I looked at you changes.
It is hard to understand if this fully solves the issue.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.03/src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/debugger/linux/amd64/LinuxAMD64CFrame.java.frames.html
@@ -34,10 +34,11 @@
public static LinuxAMD64CFrame getTopFrame(LinuxDebugger dbg, Address
rip, ThreadContext context) {
Address libptr = dbg.findLibPtrByAddress(rip);
Address cfa = context.getRegisterAsAddress(AMD64ThreadContext.RBP);
DwarfParser dwarf = null;
+ boolean unsupportedDwarf = false;
if (libptr != null) { // Native frame
try {
dwarf = new DwarfParser(libptr);
dwarf.processDwarf(rip);
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -45,24 +46,33 @@
!dwarf.isBPOffsetAvailable())
? context.getRegisterAsAddress(AMD64ThreadContext.RBP)
: context.getRegisterAsAddress(dwarf.getCFARegister())
.addOffsetTo(dwarf.getCFAOffset());
} catch (DebuggerException e) {
- // Bail out to Java frame case
+ if (dwarf != null) {
+ // DWARF processing should succeed when the frame is native
+ // but it might fail if CIE has language personality routine
+ // and/or LSDA.
+ dwarf = null;
+ unsupportedDwarf = true;
+ } else {
+ throw e;
+ }
}
}
return (cfa == null) ? null
- : new LinuxAMD64CFrame(dbg, cfa, rip, dwarf);
+ : new LinuxAMD64CFrame(dbg, cfa, rip, dwarf, !unsupportedDwarf);
}
@@ -121,13 +131,25 @@
}
return isValidFrame(nextCFA, context) ? nextCFA : null;
}
- private DwarfParser getNextDwarf(Address nextPC) {
- DwarfParser nextDwarf = null;
+ @Override
+ public CFrame sender(ThreadProxy thread) {
+ if (!possibleNext) {
+ return null;
+ }
+
+ ThreadContext context = thread.getContext();
+
+ Address nextPC = getNextPC(dwarf != null);
+ if (nextPC == null) {
+ return null;
+ }
+ DwarfParser nextDwarf = null;
+ boolean unsupportedDwarf = false;
if ((dwarf != null) && dwarf.isIn(nextPC)) {
nextDwarf = dwarf;
} else {
Address libptr = dbg.findLibPtrByAddress(nextPC);
if (libptr != null) {
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -138,33 +160,29 @@
}
}
}
if (nextDwarf != null) {
+ try {
nextDwarf.processDwarf(nextPC);
+ } catch (DebuggerException e) {
+ // DWARF processing should succeed when the frame is native
+ // but it might fail if CIE has language personality routine
+ // and/or LSDA.
+ nextDwarf = null;
+ unsupportedDwarf = true;
}
This fix looks like a hack.
Should we just propagate the Debugging exception instead of trying to maintain
unsupportedDwarf flag?
DwarfParser::processDwarf would throw DebuggerException if it cannot find DWARF
which relates to PC.
PC at this point is for next frame. So current frame (`this` object) is valid,
and it should be processed.
Also, I don't like that DWARF-specific abbreviations (like CIE, IDE,LSDA, etc.)
are used without any comments explaining them.
The code has to be generally readable without looking into the DWARF spec each
time.
I added comments for them in this webrev.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
I'm submitting mach5 jobs to make sure the issue has been resolved with your
fix.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/20/20 17:55, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Thanks Chris!
I'm waiting for reviewers for this change.
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/21 4:23, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
The failure is due to JDK-8231634, so not something you need to worry about.
thanks,
Chris
On 3/20/20 2:45 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi Chris,
I uploaded new webrev which includes reverting change for ProblemList:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.03/
I tested it on submit repo
(mach5-one-ysuenaga-JDK-8240956-2-20200320-0814-9586301),
but it has failed in ClhsdbJstackXcompStress.java.
However I think it is not caused by this change because
ClhsdbJstackXcompStress.java tests `jhsdb jstack`, not mixed mode, it would not
parse DWARF.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/20 13:55, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
The test has been problem listed so please add undoing this to your webrev.
Here's the diff that problem listed it:
diff --git a/test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt
b/test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt
--- a/test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt
+++ b/test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@
serviceability/sa/ClhsdbPrintAll.java 8193639 solaris-all
serviceability/sa/ClhsdbPrintAs.java 8193639 solaris-all
serviceability/sa/ClhsdbPrintStatics.java 8193639 solaris-all
-serviceability/sa/ClhsdbPstack.java 8193639 solaris-all
+serviceability/sa/ClhsdbPstack.java 8193639,8240956 solaris-all,linux-all
serviceability/sa/ClhsdbRegionDetailsScanOopsForG1.java 8193639 solaris-all
serviceability/sa/ClhsdbScanOops.java 8193639,8235220,8230731
solaris-all,linux-x64,macosx-x64,windows-x64
serviceability/sa/ClhsdbSource.java 8193639 solaris-all
thanks,
Chris
On 3/16/20 5:07 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi all,
This webrev has passed submit repo
(mach5-one-ysuenaga-JDK-8240956-20200316-0924-9487169) and additional tests.
So please review it:
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8240956
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.02/
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/16 21:03, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Thank you so much, David!
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/16 21:01, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/03/2020 9:46 pm, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/03/2020 7:20 pm, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
I missed loop condition, so I fixed it and pushed to submit repo.
Could you try again?
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/submit/rev/9c148df17f23
webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.02/
Test job resubmitted. Will advise results if it completes before I go to bed :)
Seems to have passed okay.
David
David
Thanks a lot!
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/16 16:17, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry it is still crashing.
#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
# SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x00007f98ec01e94e, pid=13702, tid=13704
#
# JRE version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (15.0) (fastdebug build
15-internal+0-2020-03-16-0640217.suenaga.source)
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (fastdebug
15-internal+0-2020-03-16-0640217.suenaga.source, mixed mode, sharing, tiered,
compressed oops, g1 gc, linux-amd64)
# Problematic frame:
# C [libsaproc.so+0x494e] DwarfParser::process_dwarf(unsigned long)+0x4e
#
Same as before.
David
-----
On 16/03/2020 4:57 pm, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/03/2020 4:51 pm, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
On 2020/03/16 15:43, Chris Plummer wrote:
BTW, if you submit it to the submit repo, we can then go and run additional
internal tests (and even more builds) using that job.
Thanks for that tip Chris!
I've pushed the change to submit repo, but I've not yet received the result.
I will share you when I get job ID.
We can see the id. Just need to wait for the builds to complete before
submitting the additional tests.
David
Yasumasa
Chris
On 3/15/20 11:36 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for testing it.
I updated webrev to avoid bailout to Java frame when DWARF has language
personality routine or LSDA.
Could you try it?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.01/
It works well on my Fedora 31 and Oracle Linux 7.7 .
I've pushed it to submit repo.
Diff from webrev.00 is here:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/submit/rev/6f11cd275652
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/16 13:12, David Holmes wrote:
Correction ...
On 16/03/2020 12:53 pm, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/03/2020 12:17 pm, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
I can't review this as I know nothing about the code, but I'm putting the patch
through our internal testing.
Sorry but the crashes still exist:
#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
# SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x00007fcdd403894e, pid=16948, tid=16949
#
# JRE version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (15.0) (fastdebug build
15-internal+0-2020-03-16-0214474.david.holmes.jdk-dev)
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (fastdebug
15-internal+0-2020-03-16-0214474.david.holmes.jdk-dev, mixed mode, sharing,
tiered, compressed oops, g1 gc, linux-amd64)
# Problematic frame:
# C [libsaproc.so+0x494e] DwarfParser::process_dwarf(unsigned long)+0x4e
in fact they seem worse as the test seems to always crash now.
Not worse - sorry. I see 6 failures out of 119 runs of the test in linux-x64. I
don't see a pattern as to where it fails versus passes.
It doesn't fail for me locally.
David
David
David
On 14/03/2020 11:35 am, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi all,
Please review this change:
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8240956
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8240956/webrev.00/
JDK-8234624 introduced DWARF parser in SA for unwinding native frames in jstack
mixed mode.
However some error has seen intermittently after that.
I investigated the cause of this, I found two concerns:
A: lack of buffer (.eh_frame section data) range check
B: Language personality routine and Language Specific Data Area (LSDA) are
not considered
I addd range check for .eh_frame processing, and ignore personality routine and
LSDA in this webrev.
Also I added bailout code if DWARF processing is failed due to these concerns.
This change has passed all tests on submit repo
(mach5-one-ysuenaga-JDK-8240956-20200313-1518-9434671),
also I tested it on my Fedora 31 box and Oracle Linux 7.7 container.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
