On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 20:29:38 GMT, Chad Rakoczy <[email protected]> wrote:

>> [JDK-8369150](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8369150)
>> 
>> The test checks for JVMTI `COMPILED_METHOD_LOAD` and 
>> `COMPILED_METHOD_UNLOAD` events to be published for a relocated nmethod. It 
>> would originally intermittently fail if the JVM exited before it had time to 
>> publish the events so now it loops and forces GCs to encourage event 
>> publishing. The test fails if the events are received in the incorrect order 
>> (such as an unload before a load) or if the correct events are not received 
>> and the test times out.
>
> Chad Rakoczy has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional 
> commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Require load and unload events
>  - Revert "Fix NMethodRelocationTest"
>    
>    This reverts commit dae91d8d12820c94c2c412f3e84935072e572595.

Changes requested by lmesnik (Reviewer).

test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/NMethodRelocation/NMethodRelocationTest.java
 line 60:

> 58:                 "--enable-native-access=ALL-UNNAMED",
> 59:                 "-Xbootclasspath/a:.",
> 60:                 "-Xbatch",

I think that
 "-XX:+UseSerialGC",
might be removed
The WB.fullGC() should works for any GC.
As I know, createTestJavaProcessBuilder() propagate all VM arguments to forked 
process. So not clear how it works now.

test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/NMethodRelocation/NMethodRelocationTest.java
 line 188:

> 186:         WHITE_BOX.deoptimizeAll();
> 187: 
> 188:         while (true) {

It would be better to have some variable that is set in 
'callbackCompiledMethodUnload' to sync exit.
I think that it is more reliable then using stdout for this (even with 
flushing). 
However, it might be fixed later, if we find any issues with current version.

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28683#pullrequestreview-3619074331
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28683#discussion_r2653705691
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28683#discussion_r2653690321

Reply via email to