Re: RFR: 8242428: JVMTI thread operations should use Thread-Local Handshake

[Yasumasa Suenaga]

Hi David,

Thanks for your comment!

On 2020/06/25 14:17, David Holmes wrote:

Hi Yasumasa,

Thanks for tackling this. I've had an initial look at it and have a few 
concerns.

On 24/06/2020 4:50 pm, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:

Hi all,

Please review this change:

   JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242428
   webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8242428/webrev.00/

Some typos:

invaliant -> invariant
directry -> directly

I will fix them.

This change replace following VM operations to direct handshake.

  - VM_GetFrameCount (GetFrameCount())
  - VM_GetFrameLocation (GetFrameLocation())
  - VM_GetThreadListStackTraces (GetThreadListStackTrace())
  - VM_GetCurrentLocation

It would have been better to split these out into separate changes. I am 
finding it very hard to track through the webrev and try to compare the old 
safepoint based operation with the new direct handshake approach, to check they 
are functionally equivalent.

I will separate them as following. What do you think?
If you are ok, I will update JBS.

 - Thread operations
     - VM_GetThreadListStackTraces (GetThreadListStackTrace())
     - VM_GetStackTrace(GetStackTrace())  <- I missed it to describe in 
previous mail, sorry.

 - Frame operations
     - VM_GetFrameCount (GetFrameCount())
     - VM_GetFrameLocation (GetFrameLocation())
     - VM_GetCurrentLocation

I will start to work when they are separated.

You are not checking the return value of Handshake::execute_direct and so are 
missing the possibility that the target thread has terminated before you got to 
do the operation on it. It isn't clear to me under what other circumstances 
execute_direct can also return false.

I will add it. According to Handshake::execute_direct() and 
HandshakeOperation::do_handshake(), it seems to return false if the target 
thread has terminated as you said.

You don't seem to have these checks anymore in some places:

   && !_java_thread->is_exiting() && _java_thread->threadObj() != NULL)

why not?

I thought the thread which enters handshake is always alive and it has 
threadObj.
I will recover their conditions.
(I also should recover them for GetOwnedMonitorInfoClosure and 
GetCurrentContendedMonitorClosure - I removed them in JDK-8242425)

It is not clear that all the code that previously could execute at a safepoint, 
due to being called from a VM_Operation, is still executable at a safepoint 
e.g. JvmtiThreadState::count_frames()

GetThreadListStackTrace() uses direct handshake if thread count == 1. In other 
case (thread count > 1), it would be performed as VM operation 
(VM_GetThreadListStackTraces).

This introduces a large chunk of duplicated code for the frame fill in and 
final allocation. Can you not reuse the existing logic that does this - and in 
the process do away with the the use of _needs_thread_state? I really wanted to 
see simpler code after this conversion.

I'm also wondering whether we can hide all this logic in the closure, as was 
done with the VM_Operation i.e.

*stack_info_ptr = op.stack_info();

I will try to refactor this change.

Caller of VM_GetCurrentLocation (JvmtiEnvThreadState::reset_current_location()) 
might be called at safepoint. So I added safepoint check in its caller.

I could not figure out what you were referring to here.

I guess following callpath is available:

VM_GetCurrentLocation
  JvmtiEnvThreadState::reset_current_location()
    JvmtiEventControllerPrivate::recompute_env_thread_enabled()
      JvmtiEventControllerPrivate::recompute_thread_enabled()
        JvmtiEventControllerPrivate::set_frame_pop()
          JvmtiEventController::set_frame_pop()
            JvmtiEnvThreadState::set_frame_pop()
              VM_SetFramePop::doit()

However, VM_SetFramePop seems not to allow nested VM operations.

This change has been tested in serviceability/jvmti serviceability/jdwp 
vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti vmTestbase/nsk/jdi vmTestbase/ns
k/jdwp.

Just a general comment on testing for these conversions to direct handshakes. 
We have no control over whether the handshake gets executed in the original 
thread or the target thread, so for all we know all our testing could be 
executing only one of the cases. This concerns me but I am not yet sure what to 
do about it.

Thanks,
David
-----

Also I tested it on submit repo, then it has execution error 
(mach5-one-ysuenaga-JDK-8242428-20200624-0054-12034717) due to dependency 
error. So I think it does not occur by this change.


Thanks,

Yasumasa