-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6k
8268458: Add verification type for evacuation failures #4473
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8268458: Add verification type for evacuation failures #4473
Conversation
👋 Welcome back tschatzl! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
This change helped a lot with JDK-8267073. |
938fb8b
to
b03fe64
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good.
G1VerifyType seems poorly named. The name suggests a single value, but it's really a selection bitmask. Perhaps a followup RFE?
@tschatzl 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:
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 115 new commits pushed to the
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 |
Thanks @kimbarrett for your review. I agree that we should probably rename that flag, I'll file an RFE |
Thanks @kimbarrett @walulyai for your reviews. Integrate |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit cd20c01.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
Hi all,
can I have reviews for this change that adds a new verification type (argument for
-XX:VerifyGCType
for G1) that only enables verification after an evacuation failure?The reasons is that time and time again we have issues with evacuation failure as it's by far not tested as much as regular collection, and reproducing issues then is often hampered by that there is no way to just verify after verification failure. Enabling it just for all young collections is possible, but typically does not help much.
Fwiw, this change requires a small semantics change in how the current
VerifyGCType
is compared to the one stored as active (i.e. inG1HeapVerifier::_enabled_verification_types
). Since the situations that can be enabled are not distinct any more (any young gc can have an evacuation failure), the existing check for a given set bit inG1HeapVerifier::should_verify()
does not work any more.This also means that the previous assumption that
G1VerifyType::G1VerifyAll
is not the same as all flags enabled can not be checked any more. I do not think this is any loss in functionality (see the gtests for removed checks).The same functionality could also have been implemented by injecting all of the young gen type bits into the existing
type
on evacuation failure at the cost of remembering that the user selected evacuation failures for evacuation somewhere else. Not sure if that would be simpler.Testing: tier1-2 (still running), updated test
Thanks,
Thomas
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/4473/head:pull/4473
$ git checkout pull/4473
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/4473
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/4473/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 4473
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 4473
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4473.diff