RFR: 8064909: FragmentMetaspace.java got OutOfMemoryError

Jon Masamitsu jon.masamitsu at oracle.com
Mon Dec 1 19:52:37 UTC 2014


On 11/27/2014 05:28 AM, Michail Chernov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> CC'ed hotspot-runtime-dev.
>
> Here is not test failure - test works as expected. OOME is occurred in 
> compiler instance.
>
> private JavaCompiler javac;
> ...
>         javac = ToolProvider.getSystemJavaCompiler();
> ...
>         int exitcode = javac.run(null, null, null, 
> file.getCanonicalPath());
>         if (exitcode != 0) {
>             throw new RuntimeException("javac failure when compiling: " +
>         file.getCanonicalPath());
>
> Here is 2 ways - rewrite getGeneratedClass 
> (runtime/testlibrary/GeneratedClassLoader.java) to allow them to throw 
> not only RuntimeException,

Seems like this would be more precise with regard to recognizing the
cause of the failure.  Are there too many places which would have to
change to catch the OOME.

> or to catch RuntimeException and check exception message comparing 
> with "javac failure when compiling:". Both ways seem to me are not as 
> clear as expected for this simple test. More - javac does not throw 
> anything - it just returns exitcode (non-zero) and writes its messages 
> to System.err.
>
> Also I can add comment to code like "OOME with message 
> "java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space" doesn't mean that 
> something wrong with metaspace - need just to increase -Xmx".

That would be enough for me if you don't think
throwing the OOME from  GeneratedClassLoader()
adds much value.

Jon

>
> Thanks,
> Michail
>
> On 27.11.2014 2:00, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
>> Dima,
>>
>> If this test fails with an OOME in the future, I would like it to be
>> obvious that the failure is not that an OOME occurred.   I cannot
>> tell that from looking at the test.    Can the test be changed so
>> I don't have to spend time figuring out that the OOME is not
>> a failure mode  of the test?
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>> On 11/26/2014 12:51 PM, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> The original version of test worked for 80 seconds trying to perform 
>>> as many iterations as possible. The number of iterations performed 
>>> depended on how fast is the machine. With each next iteration the 
>>> size of generated and loaded classes is growing, so on fast enough 
>>> machines 80 seconds is enough to run out of heap while generating a 
>>> class.
>>>
>>> The fix not only sets the heap, but limits iterations.  300m heap is 
>>> enough for 200 iterations.
>>>
>>> Your approach, with catching OOME(heap) and passing will also work, 
>>> but it will reduce the test readability (and potentially could bring 
>>> more problems).
>>>
>>> An alternative approach would be to limit metaspace and heap 
>>> accordingly and load classes until we don't run out metaspace... But 
>>> this might take awhile.
>>>
>>> So, I hope that Michael's fix is good.
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking and expressing comments.
>>> Dima
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26.11.2014 22:04, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
>>>> Michail,
>>>>
>>>> Your change makes this test pass but it seems like at
>>>> some future date 300m might not be big enough
>>>> (for whatever reason).  Could the test be make to
>>>> caught an OOME, print out a message saying that
>>>> an OOME doesn't mean the test failed  but that
>>>> the test needs a larger heap?  Then pass an
>>>> exception up (maybe some type of Runtime
>>>> exception - sorry if that is vague but I don't
>>>> what type of exception would make sense).  That
>>>> would mean we wouldn't have to spend time
>>>> diagnosing what the OOME means again.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> On 11/26/2014 5:36 AM, Michail Chernov wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review this simple fix for nightly test failure:
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eistepan/~mchernov/8064909/webrev.00/
>>>>> Bug:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064909
>>>>>
>>>>> Problem: test fails because of OOME (not enough heap size).
>>>>> Solution: heap size were increased.
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing:
>>>>> jtreg
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Michail
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list