On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:49:12 GMT, Matthias Baesken <mbaes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This pr changes `JfrJvmtiAgent::retransform_classes()` and >> `jfr_set_enabled` to switch to `WXWrite` before transitioning to the vm. >> >> Testing: >> make test TEST=jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestClassLoadEvent.java >> TEST_VM_OPTS=-XX:+AssertWXAtThreadSync >> make test TEST=compiler/intrinsics/klass/CastNullCheckDroppingsTest.java >> TEST_VM_OPTS=-XX:+AssertWXAtThreadSync >> >> More tests are pending. > > I noticed a few more asserts (assert(_wx_state == expected) failed: wrong > state) in the jfr area (jdk tier3 jfr tests). > E.g. > > > V [libjvm.dylib+0x8a5d94] JavaThread::check_for_valid_safepoint_state()+0x0 > V [libjvm.dylib+0x3e95b4] > ThreadStateTransition::transition_from_native(JavaThread*, JavaThreadState, > bool)+0x174 > V [libjvm.dylib+0x3e93d0] > ThreadInVMfromNative::ThreadInVMfromNative(JavaThread*)+0x70 > V [libjvm.dylib+0x91a578] JfrRecorderService::emit_leakprofiler_events(long > long, bool, bool)+0xcc > > > > and > > > V [libjvm.dylib+0x8a5d94] JavaThread::check_for_valid_safepoint_state()+0x0 > V [libjvm.dylib+0x3e95b4] > ThreadStateTransition::transition_from_native(JavaThread*, JavaThreadState, > bool)+0x174 > V [libjvm.dylib+0x3e93d0] > ThreadInVMfromNative::ThreadInVMfromNative(JavaThread*)+0x70 > V [libjvm.dylib+0x8d7f74] JfrJavaEventWriter::flush(_jobject*, int, int, > JavaThread*)+0xf8 > j jdk.jfr.internal.JVM.flush(Ljdk/jfr/internal/event/EventWriter;II)V+0 > jdk.jfr@23-internal > j jdk.jfr.internal.event.EventWriter.flush(II)V+3 jdk.jfr@23-internal > > > @MBaesken found 2 more locations in jvmti that need switching to `WXWrite` > > > ``` > > > JvmtiExport::get_jvmti_interface > > > GetCarrierThread > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both use `ThreadInVMfromNative`. > > > > > > Should we address those 2 more findings in this PR ? Or open a separate JBS > > issue ? > > I'm leaning towards fixing all locations in this PR even though this will > prevent clean backports. Would that be ok? I think this is ok. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18238#issuecomment-1999177986
