On 6/15/20 10:45 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
On 2020/06/15 22:38, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 6/15/20 3:26 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/06/2020 4:02 pm, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
On 2020/06/15 14:15, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
On 15/06/2020 2:49 pm, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi all,
I wonder why JvmtiEnvBase::get_object_monitor_usage()
(implementation of GetObjectMonitorUsage()) does not perform at
safepoint.
GetObjectMonitorUsage will use a safepoint if the target is not
suspended:
jvmtiError
JvmtiEnv::GetObjectMonitorUsage(jobject object, jvmtiMonitorUsage*
info_ptr) {
JavaThread* calling_thread = JavaThread::current();
jvmtiError err = get_object_monitor_usage(calling_thread,
object, info_ptr);
if (err == JVMTI_ERROR_THREAD_NOT_SUSPENDED) {
// Some of the critical threads were not suspended. go to a
safepoint and try again
VM_GetObjectMonitorUsage op(this, calling_thread, object,
info_ptr);
VMThread::execute(&op);
err = op.result();
}
return err;
} /* end GetObject */
I saw this code, so I guess there are some cases when
JVMTI_ERROR_THREAD_NOT_SUSPENDED is not returned from
get_object_monitor_usage().
Monitor owner would be acquired from monitor object at first [1],
but it would perform concurrently.
If owner thread is not suspended, the owner might be changed to
others in subsequent code.
For example, the owner might release the monitor before [2].
The expectation is that when we find an owner thread it is either
suspended or not. If it is suspended then it cannot release the
monitor. If it is not suspended we detect that and redo the whole
query at a safepoint.
I think the owner thread might resume unfortunately after
suspending check.
Yes you are right. I was thinking resuming also required a safepoint
but it only requires the Threads_lock. So yes the code is wrong.
Which code is wrong?
Yes, a rogue resume can happen when the GetObjectMonitorUsage() caller
has started the process of gathering the information while not at a
safepoint. Thus the information returned by GetObjectMonitorUsage()
might be stale, but that's a bug in the agent code.
I don't think so.
For example, JVMTI agent might attempt to get monitor owner from
sleeping thread or in native (e.g. during socket operation) thread,
and it might resume during GetObjectMonitorUsage() call.
A "sleeping thread" or a thread "in native" does not count as being
suspended so GetObjectMonitorUsage() will take the safepoint code
path.
Agent code can (should) not control application threads as an observer.
The agent writer has the choice of using JVM/TI SuspendThread() and
JVM/TI ResumeThread() along with GetObjectMonitorUsage() or it can
use GetObjectMonitorUsage() without direct calls to SuspendThread()
and ResumeThread. It's the agent writer's choice.
If the agent is only interested in a single thread, then doing:
SuspendThread() // might safepoint
GetObjectMonitorUsage() // won't safepoint
ResumeThread() // won't safepoint
is more performant than doing just GetObjectMonitorUsage() which
is guaranteed to safepoint (implementation detail).
IMHO GetObjectMonitorUsage() should perform at safepoint or should
start direct handshake immediately after getting owner thread from
monitor.
Handshakes are a separate matter all together. I'm talking about
the way the code works now and I don't think we've switched JVM/TI
GetObjectMonitorUsage() to use handshakes yet or have we done so?
Dan
Yasumasa
Dan
JavaThread::is_ext_suspend_completed() is used to check thread
state, it returns `true` when the thread is sleeping [3], or when
it performs in native [4].
Sure but if the thread is actually suspended it can't continue
execution in the VM or in Java code.
This appears to be an optimisation for the assumed common case
where threads are first suspended and then the monitors are queried.
I agree with this, but I could find out it from JVMTI spec - it
just says "Get information about the object's monitor."
Yes it was just an implementation optimisation, nothing to do with
the spec.
GetObjectMonitorUsage() might return incorrect information in some
case.
It starts with finding owner thread, but the owner might be just
before wakeup.
So I think it is more safe if GetObjectMonitorUsage() is called at
safepoint in any case.
Except we're moving away from safepoints to using Handshakes, so
this particular operation will require that the apparent owner is
Handshake-safe (by entering a handshake with it) before querying the
monitor. This would still be preferable I think to always using a
safepoint for the entire operation.
Cheers,
David
-----
Thanks,
Yasumasa
[3]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/76a17c8143d8/src/hotspot/share/runtime/thread.cpp#l671
[4]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/76a17c8143d8/src/hotspot/share/runtime/thread.cpp#l684
However there is still a potential bug as the thread reported as
the owner may not be suspended at the time we first see it, and
may release the monitor, but then it may get suspended before we
call:
owning_thread =
Threads::owning_thread_from_monitor_owner(tlh.list(), owner);
and so we think it is still the monitor owner and proceed to query
the monitor information in a racy way. This can't happen when
suspension itself requires a safepoint as the current thread won't
go to that safepoint during this code. However, if suspension is
implemented via a direct handshake with the target thread then we
have a problem.
David
-----
Thanks,
Yasumasa
[1]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/76a17c8143d8/src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnvBase.cpp#l973
[2]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/76a17c8143d8/src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnvBase.cpp#l996
