RFR(M): 8172970: TESTBUG: need test coverage for the JVMTI functions allowed in the start phase (original) (raw)

serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
Tue May 2 09:02:58 UTC 2017

PING: I've got a thumbs up from David Holmes. One more review is needed for this jdk 10 test enhancement.

Thanks! Serguei

On 4/28/17 17:13, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:

Hi David,

On 4/28/17 10:34, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote: Hi David,

On 4/28/17 04:42, David Holmes wrote: Hi Serguei, On 28/04/2017 6:07 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote: The updated webrev is: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.2/

Thanks for the updates (the issue with long is that on win64 it is only 32-bit while void* is 64-bit). Ok, thanks. Than you are right, using long on win64 is not compatible. I prefer to see fast-fail rather than potentially triggering cascading failures (checkjvmtierror could even call exit() I think). But let's see what others think - it's only a preference not a necessity. Ok, I'll consider call exit() as it would keep it simple. New webrev version is: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.3/ Thanks, Serguei Thanks, Serguei Thanks, David

I've re-arranged a little bit code in the ClassPrepare callback and the function testclassfunctions(). Thanks, Serguei

On 4/28/17 00:47, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote: Hi David, Thank you for looking at the test!

On 4/27/17 23:11, David Holmes wrote: Hi Serguei, On 28/04/2017 3:14 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote: Please, review the jdk 10 fix for the test enhancement: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172970

Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8172970-start-phase.1/

Sorry but I can't quite figure out exactly what this test is doing. What is the overall call structure here? This is to make sure the functions allowed in the start and live phases work Ok. As the list of functions is pretty big the test does sanity checks that the functions do not crash nor return errors. I was expecting to see a difference between things that can be called at early-start and those that can not - or are these all expected to work okay in either case? All these functions are expected to work okay in both cases. Of course, the main concern is the early start. But we have never had such coverage in the past so that the normal start phase needs to be covered too. A few comments: 44 #define TranslateError(err) "JVMTI error" I don't see the point of the above. Good catch - removed. It is a left over from another test that I used as initial template. --- 99 static long getthreadlocal(jvmtiEnv *jvmti, jthread thread) { The thread local functions use "long" as the datatype but that will only be 32-bit on 64-bit Windows. I think you need to use intptrt for complete portability. The type long has the same format as the type void* which has to be portable even on win-32. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I've replaced it with the intptrt. --- 277 printf(" Filed declaring"); typo: filed -> field Good catch - fixed. --- All your little wrapper functions make the JVMTI call and then call checkjvmtierror - but all that does is record if it passed or failed. If it failed you still continue with the next operation even if it relies on the success of the first one eg: 378 setthreadlocal(jvmti, thread, expval); 379 actval = getthreadlocal(jvmti, curthread); and the sequences in printmethodinfo: 228 err = (*jvmti)->IsMethodNative(jvmti, method, &isnative); 229 checkjvmtierror(jvmti, "IsMethodNative", err); 230 printf(" Method is native: %d\n", isnative); 231 232 if (isnative == JNIFALSE) { 233 err = (*jvmti)->GetMaxLocals(jvmti, method, &localsmax); The call at #233 may not be valid because the method actually is native but the IsMethodNative call failed for some reason. It is intentional. I have done it as a last cleanup. The point is to simplify code by skipping all the extra checks if it does not lead to any fatal errors. The most important in such a case is that the static variable result is set to FAILED. It will cause the test to fail. Then there is no point to analyze the printed results if a JVMTI error reported before. If you insist, I will add back all the extra check to make sure all printed output is valid. Thanks, Serguei Thanks, David -----

Summary: The task was to provide a test coverage for the JVMTI functions allowed during the start phase. It includes both enabling and disabling the cangenerateearlyvmstart capability. Testing the JVMTI functions allowed in any case has not been targeted by this fix. Testing: New test is passed. Thanks, Serguei

More information about the hotspot-dev mailing list