Crash with "assert(number_of_codes <= 256) failed: too many bytecodes"

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at oracle.com
Fri Jul 28 04:58:39 UTC 2017


I have a patch for JDK-8185148 [1] that put the reference to __Value in
a holder class and loads it only when -XX:+EnableMVT or —XX:+EnableValhalla
is set.  This may be a good stop gap solution for now.

Mandy
[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-dev/2017-July/003022.html

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> A possible fix would be to restore my compiler based solution to avoid mangling on __Value - that would likely take care of this.
> 
> Maurizio
> 
> 
> On 27/07/17 19:18, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>> In other words, I believe this is, again, related to JDK-8185148
>> 
>> Maurizio
>> 
>> 
>> On 27/07/17 19:16, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>> This is just the test running with Xverify:all - the MinimalValueType_1_0 class has a reference to __Value, and that reference has the mangled ClassInfo, so that is causing the verifier to fail.
>>> 
>>> Maurizio
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27/07/17 19:09, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>> I updated the webrevs in place and will re-run JPRT.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm also seeing lots of these:
>>>> 
>>>> Error: A JNI error has occurred, please check your installation and try again
>>>> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.VerifyError: Illegal type at constant pool entry 57 in class valhalla.shady.MinimalValueTypes_1_0
>>>> Exception Details:
>>>>   Location:
>>>> valhalla/shady/MinimalValueTypes_1_0.getValueClass()Ljava/lang/Class; @0: ldc
>>>>   Reason:
>>>>     Constant pool index 57 is invalid
>>>>   Bytecode:
>>>>     0000000: 1239 c000 3ab0
>>>> 
>>>>    at java.base/java.lang.invoke.MethodTypeForm.canonicalize(MethodTypeForm.java:368)
>>>>    at java.base/java.lang.invoke.MethodTypeForm.canonicalizeAll(MethodTypeForm.java:424)
>>>>    at java.base/java.lang.invoke.MethodTypeForm.canonicalize(MethodTypeForm.java:348)
>>>>    at java.base/java.lang.invoke.MethodTypeForm.findForm(MethodTypeForm.java:320)
>>>>    at java.base/java.lang.invoke.MethodType.makeImpl(MethodType.java:325)
>>>>    at java.base/java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleNatives.findMethodHandleType(MethodHandleNatives.java:292)
>>>>    at java.base/java.util.ResourceBundle.getLoader(ResourceBundle.java:561)
>>>>    at java.base/java.util.ResourceBundle.getBundleImpl(ResourceBundle.java:1560)
>>>>    at java.base/java.util.ResourceBundle.getBundleImpl(ResourceBundle.java:1535)
>>>>    at java.base/java.util.ResourceBundle.getBundle(ResourceBundle.java:836)
>>>>    at java.base/sun.launcher.LauncherHelper$ResourceBundleHolder.<clinit>(LauncherHelper.java:128)
>>>>    at java.base/sun.launcher.LauncherHelper.getLocalizedMessage(LauncherHelper.java:352)
>>>>    at java.base/sun.launcher.LauncherHelper.abort(LauncherHelper.java:519)
>>>>    at java.base/sun.launcher.LauncherHelper.loadMainClass(LauncherHelper.java:677)
>>>>    at java.base/sun.launcher.LauncherHelper.checkAndLoadMain(LauncherHelper.java:552)
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Tobias
>>>> 
>>>> On 27.07.2017 19:51, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>>> On 27.07.2017 19:50, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>>>>>> We missed a change in byte codes.cpp:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Need to move the def(_vgetfield down to the JVM byte codes and add the additional field which is _getfield as the java_code.
>>>>> Okay, I'll fix that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Tobias
>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Karen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 27.07.2017 19:30, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do you want to change in ByteCodes.java -
>>>>>>>> ByteCodeCount to 210 instead of 216?
>>>>>>> Right, that count should be updated as well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I just run this through JPRT and I get dozens of failures:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> #  Internal Error (/scratch/opt/jprt/T/P1/170707.tohartma/s/hotspot/src/share/vm/interpreter/bytecodeStream.hpp:210), pid=10773, tid=10777
>>>>>>> #  assert(Bytecodes::is_java_code(code)) failed: sanity check
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Stack: [0x00007fc4238db000,0x00007fc4239db000], sp=0x00007fc4239d72d0,  free space=1008k
>>>>>>> Native frames: (J=compiled Java code, A=aot compiled Java code, j=interpreted, Vv=VM code, C=native code)
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x16aee0f]  VMError::report_and_die(int, char const*, char const*, __va_list_tag*, Thread*, unsigned char*, void*, void*, char const*, int, unsigned long)+0x15f
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x16afbbf] VMError::report_and_die(Thread*, char const*, int, char const*, char const*, __va_list_tag*)+0x2f
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xad92fd]  report_vm_error(char const*, int, char const*, char const*, ...)+0xdd
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xb0e5d8]  BytecodeStream::next()+0x158
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xd65088] RetTable::compute_ret_table(methodHandle const&)+0x48
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xd67c7d] GenerateOopMap::compute_map(Thread*)+0x31d
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x1327c7a] OopMapForCacheEntry::compute_map(Thread*)+0xba
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x1329aa6] OopMapCacheEntry::fill(methodHandle, int)+0x136
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x132b2ab] OopMapCache::lookup(methodHandle const&, int, InterpreterOopMap*) const+0x1bb
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x126587a]  Method::mask_for(int, InterpreterOopMap*)+0x5a
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xc1e97e] frame::oops_interpreted_do(OopClosure*, RegisterMap const*, bool)+0xb0e
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x15dd2ba] JavaThread::oops_do(OopClosure*, CodeBlobClosure*)+0x21a
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x15e799e] Threads::possibly_parallel_oops_do(bool, OopClosure*, CodeBlobClosure*)+0x4e
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xd36be1] GenCollectedHeap::process_roots(StrongRootsScope*, GenCollectedHeap::ScanningOption, OopClosure*, OopClosure*, CLDClosure*, CLDClosure*, CodeBlobToOopClosure*)+0x81
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xd36fdc] GenCollectedHeap::young_process_roots(StrongRootsScope*, OopsInGenClosure*, OopsInGenClosure*, CLDClosure*)+0x4c
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xaf22e4]  DefNewGeneration::collect(bool, bool, unsigned long, bool)+0x554
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xd3a576] GenCollectedHeap::collect_generation(Generation*, bool, unsigned long, bool, bool, bool, bool)+0x356
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xd3bb28] GenCollectedHeap::do_collection(bool, bool, unsigned long, bool, GenCollectedHeap::GenerationType)+0x338
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0xa02ebd] GenCollectorPolicy::satisfy_failed_allocation(unsigned long, bool)+0xed
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x16b059d] VM_GenCollectForAllocation::doit()+0xcd
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x16ebfc9]  VM_Operation::evaluate()+0xa9
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x16e8fbf] VMThread::evaluate_operation(VM_Operation*)+0x34f
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x16e98a9]  VMThread::loop()+0x269
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x16e9f50]  VMThread::run()+0xc0
>>>>>>> V  [libjvm.so+0x1347982] thread_native_entry(Thread*)+0x112
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Maybe it's best to back out 8185349 for now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Maurizio’s call - this is compiler sources,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>> Karen
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Okay, it's getting complicated. Here are the webrevs:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/valhalla/vt_prototype/webrev.36.jdk/ 
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/valhalla/vt_prototype/webrev.36.langtools/ 
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/valhalla/vt_prototype/webrev.36.hs/ 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 27.07.2017 18:08, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 27.07.2017 17:58, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Wait - if you update these opcodes, then we need to update bytecode library as well - see
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> jdk.experimental.bytecode.Opcode
>>>>>>>>>> Right:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 2e4c9a8ae4e3 src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/experimental/bytecode/Opcode.java
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/experimental/bytecode/Opcode.java Thu Jul 27 15:59:25 2017 +0100
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/experimental/bytecode/Opcode.java Thu Jul 27 18:07:52 2017 +0200
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -235,14 +235,11 @@
>>>>>>>>>>    VSTORE(204),
>>>>>>>>>>    VALOAD(205),
>>>>>>>>>>    VASTORE(206),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VNEW(207),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VRETURN(210),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VGETFIELD(211),
>>>>>>>>>> -    TYPED(212),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VDEFAULT(214),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VWITHFIELD(215),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VBOX(216),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VUNBOX(217);
>>>>>>>>>> +    VRETURN(207),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VDEFAULT(208),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VWITHFIELD(209),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VBOX(210),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VUNBOX(211);
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>    int code;
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And I guess we have to change this as well:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 298730c35452 src/jdk.jdeps/share/classes/com/sun/tools/classfile/Opcode.java
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/jdk.jdeps/share/classes/com/sun/tools/classfile/Opcode.java Thu Jul 27 16:00:29 2017 +0100
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/jdk.jdeps/share/classes/com/sun/tools/classfile/Opcode.java Thu Jul 27 18:08:20 2017 +0200
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -247,13 +247,13 @@
>>>>>>>>>>    VSTORE(204, LOCAL),
>>>>>>>>>>    VALOAD(205),
>>>>>>>>>>    VASTORE(206),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VRETURN(210),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VRETURN(207),
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -    VDEFAULT(214, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VWITHFIELD(215, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VDEFAULT(208, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VWITHFIELD(209, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -    VBOX(216, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> -    VUNBOX(217, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VBOX(210, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> +    VUNBOX(211, CPREF_W),
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>    // impdep 0xfe: PicoJava nonpriv
>>>>>>>>>>    // impdep 0xff: Picojava priv
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/07/17 16:31, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like this is due to:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/valhalla/valhalla/hotspot/rev/dbb31857c4d4 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I count correctly, adding _vgetfield at the end 'causes number_of_codes' to be 257 and thus we fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> We should reset the value type bytecode numbers:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 5cd8d5559192 src/share/vm/interpreter/bytecodes.hpp
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/share/vm/interpreter/bytecodes.hpp Thu Jul 27 16:00:00 2017 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/share/vm/interpreter/bytecodes.hpp Thu Jul 27 17:23:40 2017 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -248,11 +248,11 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>     _vstore               = 204, // 0xcc
>>>>>>>>>>>>     _vaload               = 205, // 0xcd
>>>>>>>>>>>>     _vastore              = 206, // 0xce
>>>>>>>>>>>> -    _vreturn              = 210, // 0xd2
>>>>>>>>>>>> -    _vdefault             = 214, // 0xd6
>>>>>>>>>>>> -    _vwithfield           = 215, // 0xd7
>>>>>>>>>>>> -    _vbox                 = 216, // 0xd6
>>>>>>>>>>>> -    _vunbox               = 217, // 0xd7
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    _vreturn              = 207, // 0xcf
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    _vdefault             = 208, // 0xd0
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    _vwithfield           = 209, // 0xd1
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    _vbox                 = 210, // 0xd2
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    _vunbox               = 211, // 0xd3
>>>>>>>>>>>>       number_of_java_codes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tobias
>>> 
>> 
> 



More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list