|
+1
Chris
On 3/22/19 8:42 PM, Jean Christophe
Beyler wrote:
For what it's worth Daniil,
Webrev.02 LGTM :-)
I do believe at some point we go seem to go back and forth
about JVMCI testing and what we should do or not. I understand
it should be a case by case in a lot of spots but perhaps we
should document somewhere our stance for JVMCI test-bugs? Just
food for thought?
Thanks,
Jc
Thank
you, Chris!
Please review a new version of the change that makes the test
ignored if Graal is enabled.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8217827/webrev.02/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217827
Best regards,
Daniil
On 3/22/19, 7:59 PM, "Chris Plummer" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Daniil,
So 8mb is enough to do at least 10,000 iterations and
trigger JVMCI
initialization, but the amount of memory needed after the
System.gc() is
more than the memory used by the loop (and then freed)? I
wonder if more
compilation is being triggered after the System.gc() call,
and that uses
a lot of memory.
Also, I'm not comfortable with this concept of considering
JVMCI to be
initialized. You're making assumptions on the internal
state of JVMCI.
Other compilations could require other allocations that
could end up
failing. You also don't know how JVMCI behavior might
change in the
future, causing this test to fail again. Perhaps it is
best not to run
these ResourceExhausted tests with JVMCI. Their
reliability is dubious
enough already.
thanks,
Chris
On 3/22/19 4:02 PM, Daniil Titov wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Addind -XX:+PrintCompilation flag shows that the
first compiled method is java.lang.Object::<init>.
>
> Max heap size and parameter for the warmup stage (10K
iterations) were found a posteriori, to ensure that JVMCI
initialization is kicked but without throwing
OutOfMemoryError.
>
> The heap increase is required otherwise a second OOME
is thrown in the main thread after line 75 and in some cases
even after line 86. It seems as JVMCI eats out all 8Mb of the
heap.
>
> 75 System.gc();
> 76 if ( ! Helper.checkResult("creating " +
count + " objects") )
> 77 return Consts.TEST_FAILED;
> 78
> 79 return Consts.TEST_PASSED;
> 80 }
> 81
> 82 public static void main(String[] args) {
> 83 args =
nsk.share.jvmti.JVMTITest.commonInit(args);
> 84
> 85 int result = run(args, System.out);
> 86 System.out.println(result ==
Consts.TEST_PASSED ? "TEST PASSED" : "TEST FAILED");
> 87 System.exit(result +
Consts.JCK_STATUS_BASE);
> 88 }
>
> Best regards,
> Daniil
>
> On 3/22/19, 2:09 PM, "Chris Plummer" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Hi Daniil,
>
> What triggers the JVMCI initialization, what (in
general) is done during
> the initialization, and how did you come up with
the 10k iterations and
> a 10s sleep to ensure that initialization is
complete?
>
> What was the reason for the heap size increase?
Does the OOME happen
> before 10k iterations if you don't increase the
heap size?
>
> thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 3/22/19 1:53 PM, Daniil Titov wrote:
> > Please review the change that fixes the
failure of the test when running with Graal.
> >
> > The problem here is that the test consumes
all memory before JVMCI runtime is fully initialized. As a
result the call to
JVMCIRuntime::get_HotSpotJVMCIRuntime(CHECK_EXIT)
> > at
src/hotspot/share/jvmci/jvmciCompiler.cpp:132 throws
OutOfmemoryError that is caught by CHECK_EXIT macro that in
turn calls JVMCICompiler::exit_on_pending_exception that
performs vm_exit(-1).
> >
> > The fix increases the maximum heap size the
test uses and adds a delay to ensure the JVMCI Runtime is
fully initialized before proceeding with provoking
OutOfMemoryError.
> >
> > Before the change the test failure rate in
Mach5 builds was about 25% . With this change after 900 rounds
in Mach5 no failure was detected. The test execution time
with the change is 50 second.
> >
> > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8217827/webrev.01/
> > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217827
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --Daniil
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--
|
