8299683: [S390X] Problems with -XX:+VerifyStack by sid8606 · Pull Request #12161 · openjdk/jdk

sid8606 · 2023-01-24T06:40:37Z

Deoptimization and uncommon trap stubs require last Java PC to point to a PC which has an appropriate OopMap. Adjusting a offset for PC in last java frame.

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8299683: [S390X] Problems with -XX:+VerifyStack

Reviewers

Martin Doerr (@TheRealMDoerr - Reviewer)
Lutz Schmidt (@RealLucy - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/12161/head:pull/12161
$ git checkout pull/12161

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/12161
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/12161/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 12161

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 12161

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12161.diff

bridgekeeper · 2023-01-24T06:42:28Z

Hi @sid8606, welcome to this OpenJDK project and thanks for contributing!

We do not recognize you as Contributor and need to ensure you have signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA). If you have not signed the OCA, please follow the instructions. Please fill in your GitHub username in the "Username" field of the application. Once you have signed the OCA, please let us know by writing /signed in a comment in this pull request.

If you already are an OpenJDK Author, Committer or Reviewer, please click here to open a new issue so that we can record that fact. Please use "Add GitHub user sid8606" as summary for the issue.

If you are contributing this work on behalf of your employer and your employer has signed the OCA, please let us know by writing /covered in a comment in this pull request.

openjdk · 2023-01-24T06:43:40Z

@sid8606 The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

hotspot-compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

sid8606 · 2023-01-24T06:45:09Z

/covered

bridgekeeper · 2023-01-24T06:46:16Z

Thank you! Please allow for a few business days to verify that your employer has signed the OCA. Also, please note that pull requests that are pending an OCA check will not usually be evaluated, so your patience is appreciated!

mlbridge · 2023-01-26T23:15:06Z

Webrevs

TheRealMDoerr · 2023-01-31T04:22:47Z

src/hotspot/cpu/s390/sharedRuntime_s390.cpp


  // let the unpacker layout information in the skeletal frames just allocated.
-  __ get_PC(Z_RET);
+  offs = __ offset();


Shouldn't we use the offset from above instead of the current one? (PPC64 does that.) I think this line should get removed.

I have tried that using same offset from above instead current one but it's not pointing to correct PC for oop Maps.

Setting last_Java_pc = pc() + current offset looks weird. Could it be that this breaks something which prevents the failure from happening? E.g. pointing to somewhere outside the deopt blob?

I think you can't use this get_PC version for the intended purpose. It doesn't set Z_RET = start pc + offs which is what you probably wanted.

if Z_RET = start pc + offs can not be used then let me explore on how to get that offset on s390x.

I think something like __ get_PC(Z_RET, oop_map_offs - __ offset()); should work with oop_map_offs taken from above where the add_gc_map is used.

@TheRealMDoerr I have tried your suggestion and it' s works. I am not seeing any regressions. Added a commit for this change.

TheRealMDoerr · 2023-01-31T04:53:01Z

src/hotspot/cpu/s390/sharedRuntime_s390.cpp

  // `Deoptimization::uncommon_trap' expects it and considers its
  // sender frame as the deoptee frame.
-  __ get_PC(Z_R1_scratch);
+  int offs = __ offset();


generate_uncommon_trap_blob() has no oop_maps on s390. Most other platforms have them. I think this part of the change doesn't make sense without oop_maps.

Thanks for your comments, I have Addressed this comment in another commit.

Remove offset changes from generate_uncommon_trap_blob stub as it has no oop_maps on s390x.

TheRealMDoerr

LGTM.

openjdk · 2023-02-06T06:08:27Z

@sid8606 This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8299683: [S390X] Problems with -XX:+VerifyStack

Reviewed-by: mdoerr, lucy

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 236 new commits pushed to the master branch:

716f1df: 8301478: Replace NULL with nullptr in os/bsd
ab528ce: 4934362: see also refers to self
8f195ff: 8298952: All nodes should have type(n) == Value(n) after IGVN
e88fd8c: 8301768: G1: Remove unimplemented HeapRegionRemSet::split_card
96c50a3: 8301752: [IR Framework] Add more IR framework examples
3646c4e: 8301171: Rename sanitizers/address.h to sanitizers/address.hpp
3f3356b: 8301760: Fix possible leak in SpNegoContext dispose
b4cb6c8: 8301743: RISC-V: Add InlineSkippedInstructionsCounter to post-call nops
4dd6e8f: 8301740: RISC-V: Address::uses() should check address mode
8507db1: 8301628: RISC-V: c2 fix pipeline class for several instructions
... and 226 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f307e8c667895c302e916124751456a5443353ce...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@TheRealMDoerr, @RealLucy) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

RealLucy

Change looks good to me.
Thank you for getting this straight!

sid8606 · 2023-02-06T10:24:21Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2023-02-06T10:26:26Z

@sid8606
Your change (at version 43a64f0) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

RealLucy · 2023-02-06T13:47:27Z

/sponsor

I decided to sponsor since @TheRealMDoerr is currently on and off.

openjdk · 2023-02-06T13:48:34Z

Going to push as commit 9c80b8a.
Since your change was applied there have been 241 commits pushed to the master branch:

8e9b726: 8301599: Serial: Refactor nested closures in DefNewGeneration
7730506: 8299162: Refactor shared trampoline emission logic
522fa13: 8301580: Error recovery does not clear returnResult
7ac2079: 8301025: ClassCastException in switch with generic record
371a0c4: 8301465: Remove unnecessary nmethod arming in Full GC of Serial/Parallel
716f1df: 8301478: Replace NULL with nullptr in os/bsd
ab528ce: 4934362: see also refers to self
8f195ff: 8298952: All nodes should have type(n) == Value(n) after IGVN
e88fd8c: 8301768: G1: Remove unimplemented HeapRegionRemSet::split_card
96c50a3: 8301752: [IR Framework] Add more IR framework examples
... and 231 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f307e8c667895c302e916124751456a5443353ce...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2023-02-06T13:48:52Z

@RealLucy @sid8606 Pushed as commit 9c80b8a.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

8299683: [s390] Problems with -XX:+VerifyStack

d476f6f

bridgekeeper bot added the oca Needs verification of OCA signatory status label Jan 24, 2023

openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 24, 2023

bridgekeeper bot added the oca-verify Needs verification of OCA signatory status label Jan 24, 2023

sid8606 changed the title ~~8299683: [s390] Problems with -XX:+VerifyStack~~ 8299683: [S390X] Problems with -XX:+VerifyStack Jan 24, 2023

bridgekeeper bot removed oca Needs verification of OCA signatory status oca-verify Needs verification of OCA signatory status labels Jan 26, 2023

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 26, 2023

TheRealMDoerr reviewed Jan 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

sid8606 added 2 commits January 31, 2023 07:37

Remove offset changes from generate_uncommon_trap_blob stub

86c02aa

Remove offset changes from generate_uncommon_trap_blob stub as it has no oop_maps on s390x.

Calculate Oop Map offset for last java frame

43a64f0

TheRealMDoerr approved these changes Feb 6, 2023

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Feb 6, 2023

RealLucy approved these changes Feb 6, 2023

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Feb 6, 2023

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Feb 6, 2023

openjdk bot closed this Feb 6, 2023

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Feb 6, 2023

sid8606 deleted the verify_stack branch June 22, 2023 13:36

Conversation

sid8606 commented Jan 24, 2023 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 24, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 24, 2023

Uh oh!

sid8606 commented Jan 24, 2023

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 24, 2023

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Jan 26, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

TheRealMDoerr Jan 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sid8606 Jan 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheRealMDoerr Feb 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheRealMDoerr Feb 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sid8606 Feb 3, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheRealMDoerr Feb 4, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sid8606 Feb 6, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheRealMDoerr Jan 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sid8606 Jan 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheRealMDoerr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Feb 6, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RealLucy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sid8606 commented Feb 6, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Feb 6, 2023

Uh oh!

RealLucy commented Feb 6, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Feb 6, 2023

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Feb 6, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

sid8606 commented Jan 24, 2023 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jan 26, 2023 •

edited

Loading

sid8606 Feb 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

TheRealMDoerr Feb 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Feb 6, 2023 •

edited

Loading