RFR(S): JDK-8146546 assert(fr->safe_for_sender(thread)) failed: Safety check
gerard.ziemski at oracle.com
Fri Sep 23 19:28:10 UTC 2016
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Frederic Parain <frederic.parain at oracle.com> wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing this change.
> Good catch, I forgot the os_bsd_x86 platform, this is now fixed:
> On 09/15/2016 02:25 PM, Gerard Ziemski wrote:
>> hi Frederic,
>> Why aren’t we removing the assert, which you proposed, from os_bsd_x86.cpp?
>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Frederic Parain <frederic.parain at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Please review this small fix for bug JDK-8146546:
>>> Initial bug report is about an assertion failure in the reserved
>>> stack code. The failing assertion calls safe_for_sender() after
>>> the reconstruction of the first frame to initiate the stack
>>> After investigation, it appears that the issue is that
>>> safe_for_sender() is used for different purposes in different contexts.
>>> JFR uses this method to check if it is safe to walk the stack, if the
>>> method returns false, JFR simply records the current event without
>>> stack information. JFR has to be very conservative on the conditions to
>>> be satisfied to safely walk the stack, because JFR events could occur
>>> at any time.
>>> In the current case, safe_for_sender() is not called by JFR, but by the
>>> reserved stack management code. The implementation of the reserved
>>> stack requires to walk the stack too, but always on well defined points
>>> in execution: when the stack banging is performed to detect potential
>>> stack overflow ahead of time. Because the reserved stack code knows
>>> exactly the state of the stack when it has to browse it, it has less
>>> constraints than the JFR code. The condition that makes
>>> safe_for_sender() to return false here, and by consequence causes the
>>> assertion failure, are harmless for the reserved stack code.
>>> Removing the condition in safe_for_sender() doesn't seem a good idea,
>>> as it could be harmful for JFR code.
>>> Modifying safe_for_sender() to support both usages would make this
>>> method even more ugly.
>>> However, removing the assertion in the reserved stack code would be
>>> harmless, this is the solution proposed by this fix:
>>> Thank you,
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev