On 12/21/11 2:41 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Karen,
Thanks for the quick review! Replies in-lined below...
On 12/21/11 2:47 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
Dan,
All versions of hotspot changes look good.
Thanks! Are you OK if I don't wait for someone from the new
Serviceability team on this review? Serguei has already left
for the holidays... and I told him to ignore any e-mails from
me :-)
Dan,
I honestly ignored all emails from you while was on vacation. :)
But reviewed your fixes upon return anyway.
The fixes look good.
I can't give you any new comment.
Great work!
Thanks,
Serguei
For the JDK and test side:
1) minor: JPLISAgent.c - new lines 1210-1212 might just be an } else {
Nice catch! This line:
1212 if (!errorOccurred) {
should change back to:
1212 else {
I missed that when I was backing out some more complicated
stuff that I gave up on.
Fixed in all three versions.
2) new lines 1311-1312
Why do you break if an error occurred?
Because I was trying to match the existing style
too much. The for-loop from lines 1235-1276 does
that: if I have an error, then break...
If there is a reason to stop freeing memory, would that also
apply if
you already had had an error? So you would want to check a new
cleanuperrorOccurred
regardless of pre-existing error?
But I suspect leaving out the break would make more sense.
For this block:
1304 /*
1305 * Only check for error if we didn't
already have one
1306 * so we don't overwrite errorOccurred.
1307 */
1308 if (!errorOccurred) {
1309 errorOccurred =
checkForThrowable(jnienv);
1310 jplis_assert(!errorOccurred);
1311 if (errorOccurred) {
1312 break;
1313 }
1314 }
I'm going to delete lines 1311-1313 so we'll just try to keep
freeing as many of the memory arrays as we can...
Fixed in all three versions.
On a related note, jplis_assert() appears to be enabled even
in product bits. Which means if one of the many jplis_assert()
calls fails, then the agent terminates. I don't know the history
behind it being enabled in all bits, but I figure that's a
different issue for the Serviceability team to mull on...
Thanks again for the review.
Dan
thanks,
Karen
On Dec 21, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
This is a code review request for "day one" memory leaks in
the java.lang.instrument.Instrumentation.redefineClasses()
and JVM/TI RetransformClasses() APIs.
Since one leak is in the JDK and the other leak is in the
VM, I'm sending out separate webrevs for each repo. I'm also
attacking these leaks in three releases in parallel so there
is a pair of webrevs for: JDK6u29, JDK7u4 and JDK8. Yes, I'm
trying to get this all done before Christmas!
Here are the bug links:
7121600 2/3 Instrumentation.redefineClasses() leaks class bytes
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7121600
http://monaco.sfbay.sun.com/detail.jsp?cr=7121600
7122253 2/3 Instrumentation.retransformClasses() leaks class bytes
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7121600
http://monaco.sfbay.sun.com/detail.jsp?cr=7122253
I don't know why the bugs.sun.com links aren't showing up yet...
I think it is best to review the JDK7u4/HSX-23-B06 webrevs first.
Here are the webrevs for the JDK6u29/HSX-20 version of the fixes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7121600-webrev/1-jdk6u29/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7122253-webrev/0-hsx20/
I expect the OpenJDK6 version of the fixes to very similar if not
identical to the JDK6u29 version. I haven't been tracking the
OpenJDK6 project as closely as I used to so I don't know whether
these fixes should go back there also.
Here are the webrevs for the JDK7u4/HSX-23-B06 version of the fixes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7121600-webrev/1-jdk7u4/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7122253-webrev/0-hsx23-b06/
The JDK7u4 JLI code has some other, unrelated fixes relative to
the JDK6u29 JLI code. That required a very minor change in my fix
to JPLISAgent.c to insulate against unexpected JVM/TI phase values
in a slightly different way than the original JDK7u4 code.
Also, JDK7u4 was updated to the HSX-23-B08 snapshot last night, but
I baselined and tested the fix against HSX-23-B06 so I'm sending out
the webrev for what I actually used.
Here are the webrevs for the JDK8/HSX-23-B08 version of the fixes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7121600-webrev/1-jdk8/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7122253-webrev/0-hsx23-b08/
The JDK7u4 and JDK8 versions of the fix for 7121600 are identical.
The HSX-23-B06 and HSX-23-B08 versions of the fix for 7122253 are
also identical.
I've run the following test suites:
- VM/NSK jvmti, VM/NSK jvmti_unit
- VM/NSK jdwp
- SDK/JDK com/sun/jdi, SDK/JDK closed/com/sun/jdi, VM/NSK jdi
- SDK/JDK java/lang/instrument
- VM/NSK hprof, VM/NSK jdb, VM/NSK sajdi
- VM/NSK heapdump
- SDK/JDK misc_attach, SDK/JDK misc_jvmstat, SDK/JDK misc_tools
on the following configs:
- {Client VM, Server VM} x {product, fastdebug} x {-Xmixed, -Xcomp}
- Solaris X86 JDK6u29/HSX-20 (done - no regressions)
- Solaris X86 JDK7u4/HSX-23-B06 (done - no regressions)
- WinXP JDK7u4/HSX-23-B06 (in process, no regressions so far)
- Solaris X86 JDK8/HSX-23-B08 (just started)
- WinXP JDK8/HSX-23-B08 (not yet started)
Thanks, in advance, for any feedback...
Dan
