Skip to content
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

8254827: JVMCI: Enable it for Windows+AArch64 #307

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

rnkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

@rnkovacs rnkovacs commented Sep 1, 2021

Changes are almost identical to the original commit, only that JVMCI and Graal are enabled in hotspot.m4 instead of jvm-features.m4.

Depends on #301.

Part of the Windows/AArch64 port.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

Reviewers

Contributors

  • Bernhard Urban-Forster <burban@openjdk.org>

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev pull/307/head:pull/307
$ git checkout pull/307

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/307
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev pull/307/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 307

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 307

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev/pull/307.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 1, 2021

👋 Welcome back rnkovacs! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into pr/301 will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot changed the title Backport 88ee973334e6a155719bd2486da73567d59a7f1e 8254827: JVMCI: Enable it for Windows+AArch64 Sep 1, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 1, 2021

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the backport label Sep 1, 2021
@rnkovacs
Copy link
Contributor Author

rnkovacs commented Sep 1, 2021

/contributor add Bernhard Urban-Forster burban@openjdk.org

@rnkovacs rnkovacs marked this pull request as ready for review September 1, 2021 13:02
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 1, 2021

@rnkovacs
Contributor Bernhard Urban-Forster <burban@openjdk.org> successfully added.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Sep 1, 2021
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Sep 1, 2021

Webrevs

Copy link
Contributor

@theRealAph theRealAph left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This patch seems also to include a great many non-JVMCI changes.

@rnkovacs
Copy link
Contributor Author

rnkovacs commented Oct 5, 2021

Forgot to rebase after the recent changes - sorry about that. Could you please check again?

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Nov 2, 2021

@rnkovacs This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

@openjdk-notifier openjdk-notifier bot changed the base branch from pr/301 to master November 26, 2021 21:50
@openjdk-notifier
Copy link

The dependent pull request has now been integrated, and the target branch of this pull request has been updated. This means that changes from the dependent pull request can start to show up as belonging to this pull request, which may be confusing for reviewers. To remedy this situation, simply merge the latest changes from the new target branch into this pull request by running commands similar to these in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout 8248238-win-aarch64
git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev master
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# if there are conflicts, follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge master"
git push

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 26, 2021

@rnkovacs this pull request can not be integrated into master due to one or more merge conflicts. To resolve these merge conflicts and update this pull request you can run the following commands in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout 8254827-jvmci
git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev master
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge master"
git push

@openjdk openjdk bot added the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Nov 26, 2021
@rnkovacs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased.

@openjdk openjdk bot removed the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Nov 30, 2021
@lewurm
Copy link
Member

lewurm commented Dec 13, 2021

@theRealAph since the dependencies are resolved for this, could you have another look? Thank you

@theRealAph
Copy link
Contributor

@theRealAph since the dependencies are resolved for this, could you have another look? Thank you

Sure, but you have to address review comments.

@lewurm
Copy link
Member

lewurm commented Dec 13, 2021

@theRealAph since the dependencies are resolved for this, could you have another look? Thank you

Sure, but you have to address review comments.

I think @rnkovacs addressed it in this comment: #307 (comment)

RegisterArray allRegisters = arch.getAvailableValueRegisters();
Register[] registers = new Register[allRegisters.size() - reservedRegisters.size() - (reserveForHeapBase ? 1 : 0)];
Register[] registers = new Register[allRegisters.size() - reservedRegisters.size() - (reserveForHeapBase ? 1 : 0) - (!canUsePlatformRegister ? 1 : 0)];
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is confusing and complicated. If you set platformRegister to be either r18 or Register.None depending on the OS, you don't need a separate boolean canUsePlatformRegister.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree, it doesn't read nice. However the code around the definition of platformRegister doesn't know which platform we are dealing with. We could potentially pass down the config object via the constructor... or use the boolean flag as proposed here. Do you think it's worth changing it? I'm mostly worried about diverging from tip.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I see. Let it stand.

@theRealAph
Copy link
Contributor

@theRealAph since the dependencies are resolved for this, could you have another look? Thank you

Sure, but you have to address review comments.

I think @rnkovacs addressed it in this comment: #307 (comment)

Argh! My review comment was stuck in the "pending" queue.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 15, 2021

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

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

8254827: JVMCI: Enable it for Windows+AArch64

Co-authored-by: Bernhard Urban-Forster <burban@openjdk.org>
Reviewed-by: aph

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 44 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ec89f1b: 8274736: Concurrent read/close of SSLSockets causes SSLSessions to be invalidated unnecessarily
  • b07b90f: 8278309: [windows] use of uninitialized OSThread::_state
  • 86c2995: 8202142: jfr/event/io/TestInstrumentation is unstable
  • 4b68145: Merge
  • d665a4e: 8277529: SIGSEGV in C2 CompilerThread Node::rematerialize() compiling Packet::readUnsignedTrint
  • 90c933e: 8207793: [TESTBUG] runtime/Metaspace/FragmentMetaspace.java fails: heap needs to be increased
  • 9363d55: 8211170: AArch64: Warnings in C1 and template interpreter
  • c94151b: 8273575: memory leak in appendBootClassPath(), paths must be deallocated
  • ba1a0e8: 8266187: Memory leak in appendBootClassPath()
  • c8c546b: 8240904: Screen flashes on test failures when running tests from make
  • ... and 34 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev/compare/596816e1a927c404e70d0d563bd52d6037bba9c0...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 (@theRealAph) 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).

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Dec 15, 2021
@rnkovacs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you both. I tagged the JBS issue.

@rnkovacs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you @GoeLin.

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Dec 20, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 20, 2021

@rnkovacs
Your change (at version 3c30abb) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@VladimirKempik
Copy link

/sponsor

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 27, 2021

Going to push as commit 994276c.
Since your change was applied there have been 52 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 8989823: 8276314: [JVMCI] check alignment of call displacement during code installation
  • fdf21b6: 8265150: AsyncGetCallTrace crashes on ResourceMark
  • 2893731: 8276177: nsk/jvmti/RedefineClasses/StressRedefineWithoutBytecodeCorruption failed with "assert(def_ik->is_being_redefined()) failed: should be being redefined to get here"
  • cd8ea37: 8273638: javax/swing/JTable/4235420/bug4235420.java fails in GTK L&F
  • fc54784: 8258554: javax/swing/JTable/4235420/bug4235420.java fails in GTK L&F
  • bf7c965: 8277385: Zero: Enable CompactStrings support
  • bd97b56: 8278116: runtime/modules/LoadUnloadModuleStress.java has duplicate -Xmx
  • d3c2dc0: 8278115: gc/stress/gclocker/TestGCLockerWithSerial.java has duplicate -Xmx
  • ec89f1b: 8274736: Concurrent read/close of SSLSockets causes SSLSessions to be invalidated unnecessarily
  • b07b90f: 8278309: [windows] use of uninitialized OSThread::_state
  • ... and 42 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk11u-dev/compare/596816e1a927c404e70d0d563bd52d6037bba9c0...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Dec 27, 2021
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Dec 27, 2021
@openjdk 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 Dec 27, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 27, 2021

@VladimirKempik @rnkovacs Pushed as commit 994276c.

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

@rnkovacs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you @VladimirKempik!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport integrated Pull request has been integrated
4 participants