8349007: The jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time #24383

coleenp · 2025-04-02T17:28:12Z

This is mostly test change. ResolvedMethodTableHash.java is run /manual but still takes a long time and doesn't really verify that the hash code is any good. This add logging, triggers concurrent work like other ConcurrentHashtables, and checks that a small table is not rehashed.
Tested with tier1 (including test).

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-8349007: The jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Leonid Mesnik (@lmesnik - Reviewer)
Matias Saavedra Silva (@matias9927 - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/24383/head:pull/24383
$ git checkout pull/24383

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/24383
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/24383/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 24383

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 24383

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24383.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2025-04-02T17:28:52Z

👋 Welcome back coleenp! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2025-04-02T17:29:09Z

@coleenp 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:

8349007: The jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time

Reviewed-by: lmesnik, matsaave

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 142 new commits pushed to the master branch:

689d73a: 8317012: Explicitly check for 32-bit word size for using libatomic with zero
5cac579: 8353713: Improve Currency.getInstance exception handling
e1a4a6b: 8340185: Use make -k on GHA to catch more build errors
... and 139 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/52f56e608e65f876dc7403ad6240ef13945b2480...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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

openjdk · 2025-04-02T17:29:46Z

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

hotspot

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.

mlbridge · 2025-04-02T17:33:28Z

Webrevs

01: Full - Incremental (346e7a72)
00: Full (dedbf9f9)

lmesnik

Seems that test is become much shorter, doesn't it the case of rehashing lost?
Might be better to have 2 tests:

check that 1000 iterations don't cause rehashing
original, stress scenario

How much time the take now?

Also, does it make sense to run test in several threads ? No need to now, just file RFE.

See more comments iline.

lmesnik · 2025-04-03T19:44:46Z

test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/MemberName/ResolvedMethodTableHash.java

-    }
+    public static class ResolvedMethodTableHashTest extends ClassLoader {
+        // Generate a MethodHandle for ClassName.m()
+        private MethodHandle generate(String className) throws ReflectiveOperationException {


The indentation is wrong in line 53, 60, 70, 71, 96, 102, might be other places also.

My indent script was a bit too agressive.

lmesnik · 2025-04-03T19:48:47Z

test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/MemberName/ResolvedMethodTableHash.java

+                ResolvedMethodTableHashTest generator = new ResolvedMethodTableHashTest();
+                List<MethodHandle> handles = new ArrayList<>();
+
+                int count = args.length > 0 ? Integer.parseInt(args[0]) : 200000;


no need to check args and have default 20000, it is not executed, actually.
might be just hardcode 1000 here?

I fixed this to hardcode 1001 (want 1001 iterations to print the message).

This was a good suggestion, thank you.

coleenp · 2025-04-03T20:40:48Z

This test was never meant to be a stress test, it was just checking that the hashcode didn't result in collisions for methods with the same name and signature.
With my change it takes 32 seconds to run make test TEST=runtime/MemberName/ResolvedMethodTableHash.java which is probably about 31 seconds for jtreg to run.

lmesnik · 2025-04-03T23:09:23Z

This test was never meant to be a stress test, it was just checking that the hashcode didn't result in collisions for methods with the same name and signature.
Thanks for explanation.
With my change it takes 32 seconds to run make test TEST=runtime/MemberName/ResolvedMethodTableHash.java which is probably about 31 seconds for jtreg to run.
That's fast enough to remove manual tag. I think it is up t o you if you want to run it in tier1 or move into tier2/3.

lmesnik

Thanks for addressing the comments.

matias9927

The change looks good!
Edit: I had the same question as Leonid and didn't notice that you had already answered it. Thanks!

coleenp · 2025-04-09T17:42:34Z

Thank you for the code reviews Leonid and Matias.
/integrate

openjdk · 2025-04-09T17:43:14Z

Going to push as commit 6352ee1.
Since your change was applied there have been 173 commits pushed to the master branch:

5f2a604: 8353840: JNativeScan should not abort for missing classes
1f21da7: 8351462: Improve robustness of String concatenation
567c688: 8353597: Refactor handling VM options for AOT cache input and output
... and 170 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/52f56e608e65f876dc7403ad6240ef13945b2480...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2025-04-09T17:43:21Z

@coleenp Pushed as commit 6352ee1.

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

8349007: jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time

dedbf9f

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Apr 2, 2025

openjdk bot added the hotspot hotspot-dev@openjdk.org label Apr 2, 2025

coleenp changed the title ~~8349007: jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time~~ 8349007: The jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time Apr 3, 2025

lmesnik suggested changes Apr 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

Fix indent and hardcode 1001 loops.

346e7a7

lmesnik approved these changes Apr 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Apr 4, 2025

matias9927 approved these changes Apr 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Apr 9, 2025

openjdk bot closed this Apr 9, 2025

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Apr 9, 2025

coleenp deleted the rmt-hash branch April 9, 2025 17:51

8349007: The jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time #24383

8349007: The jtreg test ResolvedMethodTableHash takes excessive time #24383

Uh oh!

Conversation

coleenp commented Apr 2, 2025 • 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 Apr 2, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Apr 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Apr 2, 2025

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Apr 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

lmesnik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lmesnik Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coleenp Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lmesnik Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coleenp Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coleenp Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coleenp commented Apr 3, 2025

Uh oh!

lmesnik commented Apr 3, 2025

Uh oh!

lmesnik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

matias9927 left a comment • 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!

coleenp commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

coleenp commented Apr 2, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Apr 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Apr 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

matias9927 left a comment •

edited

Loading