Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
Hello, in the combination minimal+server , you can jlink smaller target images using "minimal" because of the much smaller libjvm.so . Just an example , target image size is sometimes important too . Best regards, Matthias > I am just wondering, what are the practical reasons for including two > libjvms in the same JDK? > > We had server/client VMs in the past so we can use the same JDK for > running "throughput" jobs vs "desktop/interactive" jobs. But that's no > longer needed with advances in tier compilation, etc. > > Thanks > - Ioi >
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
I am just wondering, what are the practical reasons for including two libjvms in the same JDK? We had server/client VMs in the past so we can use the same JDK for running "throughput" jobs vs "desktop/interactive" jobs. But that's no longer needed with advances in tier compilation, etc. Thanks - Ioi On 2/20/20 10:33 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: 20 feb. 2020 kl. 16:13 skrev Bob Vandette : Keep in mind that any change here will have an impact on the jlink option that allows for the selection of JVM. Jlink Plugin Name: vm Option: --vm= Description: Select the HotSpot VM in the output image. Default is all Good point. I think if we remove building of multiple JVMs in the same pass, we need to instead add an option to “import” additional JVMs. That way, the user can build the JVM in a separate configuration, so we can simplify the logic to mean one configuration == one JVM variant, and then it would still be possible to create a resulting jimage that consists of multiple JVM variants. /Magnus Bob. On Feb 20, 2020, at 10:04 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2020-02-20 12:52, Baesken, Matthias wrote: run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && make hotspot". Hello, this would , as far as I know, not produce the same result jdk image with both minimal+server libjvm in the image . So the proposed change sounds a bit like a workaround, but not a real replacement to what we have currently . Well, almost. The resulting minimal/libjvm.so would reside in a different directory, and would have to be copied into place. And the jvm.cfg file needs to be correspondingly updated. All of this is trivial for you to do in your wrapper CI scripts. Just as what Adrian does with zero. The simplicity of that solution compared to the logistical nightmare in the make files does not make a compelling case for keeping the multi-JVM support. However if you do that, you *should* get the same result. If not, then it's a bug somewhere (and that would really explain why this business of having multiple JVMs is hairy!). Give it a try! You can use the compare.sh script to verify that the resulting images are equal. The one thing you need to take care of is making sure that the set of JVM features that code outside Hotspot cares about is matching. This is one of the thing the current system is trying hard to do (and failing, mostly, in all edge cases). E.g., you need to either enable CDS on both the server and the minimal build, or disable it on both. /Magnus Best Regards, Matthias On 2020-02-19 16:59, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hi Magnus, yes we do. We build (on Linux only currently) "--with-jvm- variants=minimal,server" in our central builds to test that minimal is still working and that is was not destroyed by recent changes . Best Regards, Matthias Is this just to test that minimal is working? If so, you could just as well run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && make hotspot". Unless you are actually shipping this configuration, that does not seem like a solid reason for keeping this functionality in the build. /Magnus
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
> 20 feb. 2020 kl. 16:13 skrev Bob Vandette : > > Keep in mind that any change here will have an impact on the jlink option > that allows for the > selection of JVM. > > Jlink Plugin Name: vm > Option: --vm= > Description: Select the HotSpot VM in the output image. Default is all Good point. I think if we remove building of multiple JVMs in the same pass, we need to instead add an option to “import” additional JVMs. That way, the user can build the JVM in a separate configuration, so we can simplify the logic to mean one configuration == one JVM variant, and then it would still be possible to create a resulting jimage that consists of multiple JVM variants. /Magnus > > Bob. > > >> On Feb 20, 2020, at 10:04 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie >> wrote: >> >> On 2020-02-20 12:52, Baesken, Matthias wrote: run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && make hotspot". >>> Hello, this would , as far as I know, not produce the same result jdk >>> image with both minimal+server libjvm in the image . >>> So the proposed change sounds a bit like a workaround, but not a real >>> replacement to what we have currently . >> >> Well, almost. The resulting minimal/libjvm.so would reside in a different >> directory, and would have to be copied into place. And the jvm.cfg file >> needs to be correspondingly updated. All of this is trivial for you to do in >> your wrapper CI scripts. Just as what Adrian does with zero. The simplicity >> of that solution compared to the logistical nightmare in the make files does >> not make a compelling case for keeping the multi-JVM support. >> >> However if you do that, you *should* get the same result. If not, then it's >> a bug somewhere (and that would really explain why this business of having >> multiple JVMs is hairy!). Give it a try! You can use the compare.sh script >> to verify that the resulting images are equal. >> >> The one thing you need to take care of is making sure that the set of JVM >> features that code outside Hotspot cares about is matching. This is one of >> the thing the current system is trying hard to do (and failing, mostly, in >> all edge cases). E.g., you need to either enable CDS on both the server and >> the minimal build, or disable it on both. >> >> /Magnus >>> >>> Best Regards, Matthias >>> >>> > On 2020-02-19 16:59, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > Hi Magnus, yes we do. We build (on Linux only currently) "--with-jvm- variants=minimal,server" in our central builds to test that minimal is still working and that is was not destroyed by recent changes . > Best Regards, Matthias Is this just to test that minimal is working? If so, you could just as well run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && make hotspot". Unless you are actually shipping this configuration, that does not seem like a solid reason for keeping this functionality in the build. /Magnus >> >
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
Keep in mind that any change here will have an impact on the jlink option that allows for the selection of JVM. Jlink Plugin Name: vm Option: --vm= Description: Select the HotSpot VM in the output image. Default is all Bob. > On Feb 20, 2020, at 10:04 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie > wrote: > > On 2020-02-20 12:52, Baesken, Matthias wrote: >>> run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && >>> make hotspot". >> Hello, this would , as far as I know, not produce the same result jdk >> image with both minimal+server libjvm in the image . >> So the proposed change sounds a bit like a workaround, but not a real >> replacement to what we have currently . > > Well, almost. The resulting minimal/libjvm.so would reside in a different > directory, and would have to be copied into place. And the jvm.cfg file needs > to be correspondingly updated. All of this is trivial for you to do in your > wrapper CI scripts. Just as what Adrian does with zero. The simplicity of > that solution compared to the logistical nightmare in the make files does not > make a compelling case for keeping the multi-JVM support. > > However if you do that, you *should* get the same result. If not, then it's a > bug somewhere (and that would really explain why this business of having > multiple JVMs is hairy!). Give it a try! You can use the compare.sh script to > verify that the resulting images are equal. > > The one thing you need to take care of is making sure that the set of JVM > features that code outside Hotspot cares about is matching. This is one of > the thing the current system is trying hard to do (and failing, mostly, in > all edge cases). E.g., you need to either enable CDS on both the server and > the minimal build, or disable it on both. > > /Magnus >> >> Best Regards, Matthias >> >> >>> On 2020-02-19 16:59, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hi Magnus, yes we do. We build (on Linux only currently) "--with-jvm- >>> variants=minimal,server" in our central builds to test that minimal is >>> still >>> working and that is was not destroyed by recent changes . Best Regards, Matthias >>> Is this just to test that minimal is working? If so, you could just as >>> well run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && >>> make hotspot". Unless you are actually shipping this configuration, that >>> does not seem like a solid reason for keeping this functionality in the >>> build. >>> >>> /Magnus >
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
On 2020-02-20 12:52, Baesken, Matthias wrote: run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && make hotspot". Hello, this would , as far as I know, not produce the same result jdk image with both minimal+server libjvm in the image . So the proposed change sounds a bit like a workaround, but not a real replacement to what we have currently . Well, almost. The resulting minimal/libjvm.so would reside in a different directory, and would have to be copied into place. And the jvm.cfg file needs to be correspondingly updated. All of this is trivial for you to do in your wrapper CI scripts. Just as what Adrian does with zero. The simplicity of that solution compared to the logistical nightmare in the make files does not make a compelling case for keeping the multi-JVM support. However if you do that, you *should* get the same result. If not, then it's a bug somewhere (and that would really explain why this business of having multiple JVMs is hairy!). Give it a try! You can use the compare.sh script to verify that the resulting images are equal. The one thing you need to take care of is making sure that the set of JVM features that code outside Hotspot cares about is matching. This is one of the thing the current system is trying hard to do (and failing, mostly, in all edge cases). E.g., you need to either enable CDS on both the server and the minimal build, or disable it on both. /Magnus Best Regards, Matthias On 2020-02-19 16:59, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hi Magnus, yes we do. We build (on Linux only currently) "--with-jvm- variants=minimal,server" in our central builds to test that minimal is still working and that is was not destroyed by recent changes . Best Regards, Matthias Is this just to test that minimal is working? If so, you could just as well run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && make hotspot". Unless you are actually shipping this configuration, that does not seem like a solid reason for keeping this functionality in the build. /Magnus
RE: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
> run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && > make hotspot". Hello, this would , as far as I know, not produce the same result jdk image with both minimal+server libjvm in the image . So the proposed change sounds a bit like a workaround, but not a real replacement to what we have currently . Best Regards, Matthias > > On 2020-02-19 16:59, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > > Hi Magnus, yes we do. We build (on Linux only currently) "--with-jvm- > variants=minimal,server" in our central builds to test that minimal is > still > working and that is was not destroyed by recent changes . > > > > Best Regards, Matthias > Is this just to test that minimal is working? If so, you could just as > well run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && > make hotspot". Unless you are actually shipping this configuration, that > does not seem like a solid reason for keeping this functionality in the > build. > > /Magnus
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
On 2020-02-19 16:59, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hi Magnus, yes we do. We build (on Linux only currently) "--with-jvm-variants=minimal,server" in our central builds to test that minimal is still working and that is was not destroyed by recent changes . Best Regards, Matthias Is this just to test that minimal is working? If so, you could just as well run a separate task with "configure --with-jvm-variants=minimal && make hotspot". Unless you are actually shipping this configuration, that does not seem like a solid reason for keeping this functionality in the build. /Magnus Message: 2 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:26:35 +0100 From: Magnus Ihse Bursie To: build-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs? Message-ID: <3916a515-d67f-4f20-b149-a50408e13...@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Are there still any realistic scenarios where anyone builds multiple variants of Hotspot in the same configuration? This was basically introduced for 32-bit builds, where both the server and the client variant of Hotspot were built. In Oracle at least, we stopped building multiple JVM variants a long time ago. Since the build system is taxed with convoluted logic in places just to support this, I?d prefer to remove it if it is not used anymore. So, is there anyone out there, still doing this? /Magnus
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
On 2/20/20 9:32 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >>> I think we should also ask -- is anyone actually shipping a JDK build with >>> multiple libjvm variants in it? >> Debian and therefore Ubuntu always build and ship both Hotspot and Zero on >> every architecture which supports both [1]. > But that is not supported by the build system -- if you build zero, you > cannot build any other JVM at the > same time! So if you ship this, you must build them separately and then in a > post-processing step copy them > together and modify jvm.cfg, right? Yeah, I think those are separate builds running each their own configure run [1]. Adrian > [1] > https://git.launchpad.net/~openjdk/ubuntu/+source/openjdk/+git/openjdk/tree/debian/rules -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
On 2020-02-20 09:28, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 2/20/20 9:24 AM, Ioi Lam wrote: I think we should also ask -- is anyone actually shipping a JDK build with multiple libjvm variants in it? Debian and therefore Ubuntu always build and ship both Hotspot and Zero on every architecture which supports both [1]. But that is not supported by the build system -- if you build zero, you cannot build any other JVM at the same time! So if you ship this, you must build them separately and then in a post-processing step copy them together and modify jvm.cfg, right? /Magnus Adrian [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/openjdk-14
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
On 2/20/20 9:24 AM, Ioi Lam wrote: > I think we should also ask -- is anyone actually shipping a JDK build with > multiple libjvm variants in it? Debian and therefore Ubuntu always build and ship both Hotspot and Zero on every architecture which supports both [1]. Adrian > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/openjdk-14 -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
I think we should also ask -- is anyone actually shipping a JDK build with multiple libjvm variants in it? I guess people may be building multiple variants during testing just because it's convenient (and requires less time), but if this is the only reason, then it doesn't seem to be worth the complexity in the build system. (I think are also logics in jlink that are needed to support multiple variants, so those can also be simplified). Thanks - Ioi On 2/19/20 4:26 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: Are there still any realistic scenarios where anyone builds multiple variants of Hotspot in the same configuration? This was basically introduced for 32-bit builds, where both the server and the client variant of Hotspot were built. In Oracle at least, we stopped building multiple JVM variants a long time ago. Since the build system is taxed with convoluted logic in places just to support this, I’d prefer to remove it if it is not used anymore. So, is there anyone out there, still doing this? /Magnus
RE: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
Hi Magnus, yes we do. We build (on Linux only currently) "--with-jvm-variants=minimal,server" in our central builds to test that minimal is still working and that is was not destroyed by recent changes . Best Regards, Matthias > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:26:35 +0100 > From: Magnus Ihse Bursie > To: build-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs? > Message-ID: <3916a515-d67f-4f20-b149-a50408e13...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Are there still any realistic scenarios where anyone builds multiple variants > of > Hotspot in the same configuration? > > This was basically introduced for 32-bit builds, where both the server and the > client variant of Hotspot were built. In Oracle at least, we stopped building > multiple JVM variants a long time ago. > > Since the build system is taxed with convoluted logic in places just to > support > this, I?d prefer to remove it if it is not used anymore. So, is there anyone > out > there, still doing this? > > /Magnus >
Re: Is anyone still building multiple JVMs?
On 2/19/20 1:26 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > Are there still any realistic scenarios where anyone builds multiple variants > of Hotspot in the > same configuration? > > This was basically introduced for 32-bit builds, where both the server and > the client variant of > Hotspot were built. In Oracle at least, we stopped building multiple JVM > variants a long time > ago. > > Since the build system is taxed with convoluted logic in places just to > support this, I’d prefer > to remove it if it is not used anymore. So, is there anyone out there, still > doing this? My CI builds multiple variants, but in their own separate configurations: https://builds.shipilev.net/openjdk-jdk/configure-logs/ As long as --with-jvm-variants=... accepts a single variant, I am good. It is probably --with-jvm-variant=... then, a minor nuisance to fix in build configs. -- Thanks, -Aleksey
