Ok, it seems there are some suspicious fragments in the interpreter code.
Christian, could you, please, check and comment the fragments below?
This is how the Method::max_stack() is defined:
*src/share/vm/oops/method.hpp*:
int verifier_max_stack() const { return _max_stack; }
int max_stack() const { return _max_stack +
extra_stack_entries(); }
void set_max_stack(int size) { _max_stack = size; }
. . .
static int extra_stack_entries() { return EnableInvokeDynamic ? 2 : 0; }
The following code fragments are unaware that the method->max_stack()
returns _max_stack + extra_stack_entries() :
*src/cpu/sparc/vm/cppInterpreter_sparc.cpp*:
*src/cpu/sparc/vm/cppInterpreter_***x86*.cpp*:
static int size_activation_helper(int callee_extra_locals, int
max_stack, int monitor_size) {
. . .
const int extra_stack = 0; //6815692//Method::extra_stack_entries();
????
return (round_to(max_stack +
extra_stack +
. . .
}
. . .
void BytecodeInterpreter::layout_interpreterState(interpreterState to_fill,
. . .
int extra_stack = 0;
//6815692//Method::extra_stack_entries(); ????
to_fill->_stack_limit = stack_base - (method->max_stack() + 1 +
extra_stack);
. . .
}
*src/cpu/sparc/vm/templateInterpreter_sparc.cpp*:
static int size_activation_helper(int callee_extra_locals, int
max_stack, int monitor_size) {
. . .
const int max_stack_words = max_stack * Interpreter::stackElementWords;
return (round_to((max_stack_words
//6815692//+
Method::extra_stack_words() ????
. . .
}
At the size_activation_helper call sites the second parameter is usually
passed as method->max_stack().
*src/cpu/x86/vm/templateInterpreter_x86_32.cpp*:
*src/cpu/x86/vm/templateInterpreter_x86_64.cpp*:
int AbstractInterpreter::size_top_interpreter_activation(Method* method) {
. . .
const int extra_stack = Method::extra_stack_entries();
const int method_stack = (method->max_locals() + method->max_stack()
+ extra_stack) *
Interpreter::stackElementWords;
. . .
}
*src/share/vm/interpreter/oopMapCache.cpp*:
void OopMapForCacheEntry::compute_map(TRAPS) {
. . .
// First check if it is a method where the stackmap is always empty
if (method()->code_size() == 0 || method()->max_locals() +
method()->max_stack() == 0) {
_entry->set_mask_size(0);
} else {
. . .
}
Above, if the invokedynamic is enabled then the method()->max_stack()
can not be 0.
We need to check it if this fact does not break the fragment.
I'm still looking at other places...
Thanks,
Serguei
On 10/30/12 10:41 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
I have a plan to look at it, at least for other serviceablity code.
It'd be good if someone from the runtime or compiler team checked it too.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 10/30/12 10:37 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Thumbs up.
Is someone going to do an audit for similar missing changes
from max_stack() (not max_size()) to verifier_max_stack()?
Dan
On 10/30/12 1:30 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
Please, review the fix for CR:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7194607
CR in JIRA:
https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-7194607
Open webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2012/7194607-JVMTI-max_size
Summary:
This issue is caused by the changes in the oops/method.hpp for
invokedynamic (JSR 292).
Now the max_stack() adds +2 to the original code attribute stack
size if invokedynamic is enabled.
The verifier_max_stack() must be used in the
jvmtiClassFileReconstituter.cpp
instead of the max_size() to get the code attribute stack size.
Thanks,
Serguei
