Quantcast

RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Andrew Haley
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

frederic parain
I'll sponsor it.

Thank you,

Fred

On 01/09/2017 01:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>
> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>
> Andrew.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Roland Westrelin-3
In reply to this post by Andrew Haley

> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/

That looks good to me.

Roland.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

frederic parain
In reply to this post by Andrew Haley
Changes look good to me.

Thank you for implementing the feature on AArch64.

Fred

On 01/09/2017 01:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>
> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>
> Andrew.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Stanislav Smirnov
In reply to this post by Andrew Haley
I am looking at this line and noticed a minor note,

+                  (Platform.isPPC() || Platform.isS390x() || Platform.isX64() || Platform.isX86()) || Platform.isAArch64()) ||
shall Platform.isAArch64() be together with ppc/s390x/x64/x86 conditions? Because right now it is outside.

Best regards,
Stanislav Smirnov





> On 09 Jan 2017, at 21:04, Andrew Haley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>
> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>
> Andrew.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Andrew Haley
On 10/01/17 18:57, Stanislav Smirnov wrote:
> shall Platform.isAArch64() be together with ppc/s390x/x64/x86 conditions? Because right now it is outside.

Thanks!

Andrew.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Chris Plummer
In reply to this post by Andrew Haley
Hi Andrew,

This change has inadvertently enabled the test for the Oracle arm64
port, which is now failing occasionally. I filed JDK-8177055. We need a
better check than Platform.isAArch64() so we can distinguish between the
Oracle arm64 port and the open Aarch64 port. I'm not sure what the
answer is at the moment.

thanks,

Chris

On 1/9/17 10:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>
> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>
> Andrew.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Bob Vandette
I don’t think we need a better check.  We shouldn’t have tests that are enabled that don’t run on both
implementations.

Bob.

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Chris Plummer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> This change has inadvertently enabled the test for the Oracle arm64 port, which is now failing occasionally. I filed JDK-8177055. We need a better check than Platform.isAArch64() so we can distinguish between the Oracle arm64 port and the open Aarch64 port. I'm not sure what the answer is at the moment.
>
> thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 1/9/17 10:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>>
>> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>>
>> Andrew.
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Chris Plummer
I'm not sure why you would say that. I would assume that this is an
important test for testing the Reserved Stack Area. Not running it on a
supported platform would leaving a testing gap IMHO.

Chris

On 3/17/17 1:15 PM, Bob Vandette wrote:

> I don’t think we need a better check.  We shouldn’t have tests that are enabled that don’t run on both
> implementations.
>
> Bob.
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Chris Plummer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> This change has inadvertently enabled the test for the Oracle arm64 port, which is now failing occasionally. I filed JDK-8177055. We need a better check than Platform.isAArch64() so we can distinguish between the Oracle arm64 port and the open Aarch64 port. I'm not sure what the answer is at the moment.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 1/9/17 10:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>>>
>>> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>>>
>>> Andrew.
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Bob Vandette
I’m just saying that the test should run on both the Oracle 64-bit ARM port as well as the aarch64 port and shouldn’t
be excluded on one or the other implementations.

Bob.

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Chris Plummer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why you would say that. I would assume that this is an important test for testing the Reserved Stack Area. Not running it on a supported platform would leaving a testing gap IMHO.
>
> Chris
>
> On 3/17/17 1:15 PM, Bob Vandette wrote:
>> I don’t think we need a better check.  We shouldn’t have tests that are enabled that don’t run on both
>> implementations.
>>
>> Bob.
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Chris Plummer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> This change has inadvertently enabled the test for the Oracle arm64 port, which is now failing occasionally. I filed JDK-8177055. We need a better check than Platform.isAArch64() so we can distinguish between the Oracle arm64 port and the open Aarch64 port. I'm not sure what the answer is at the moment.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On 1/9/17 10:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>>>>
>>>> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>>>>
>>>> Andrew.
>>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Chris Plummer
So how then do you test a feature that is in one port and not the other
if the test can't determine if the feature is present? All it can do is
detect if something went wrong with the testing, but it does not know if
the failure is due to a bug or if due to the feature not being present.

Chris

On 3/17/17 2:01 PM, Bob Vandette wrote:

> I’m just saying that the test should run on both the Oracle 64-bit ARM port as well as the aarch64 port and shouldn’t
> be excluded on one or the other implementations.
>
> Bob.
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Chris Plummer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why you would say that. I would assume that this is an important test for testing the Reserved Stack Area. Not running it on a supported platform would leaving a testing gap IMHO.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 3/17/17 1:15 PM, Bob Vandette wrote:
>>> I don’t think we need a better check.  We shouldn’t have tests that are enabled that don’t run on both
>>> implementations.
>>>
>>> Bob.
>>>
>>>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Chris Plummer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> This change has inadvertently enabled the test for the Oracle arm64 port, which is now failing occasionally. I filed JDK-8177055. We need a better check than Platform.isAArch64() so we can distinguish between the Oracle arm64 port and the open Aarch64 port. I'm not sure what the answer is at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On 1/9/17 10:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172144
>>>>>
>>>>> Needs a sponsor because it enables the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8172144/
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew.
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Andrew Haley
In reply to this post by Bob Vandette
On 17/03/17 21:01, Bob Vandette wrote:
> I’m just saying that the test should run on both the Oracle 64-bit
> ARM port as well as the aarch64 port and shouldn’t be excluded on
> one or the other implementations.

But you haven't explained why you believe this.  It's not practical to
keep both implementations in lock-step with regard to features.  At
least, not without hobbling one of them, which I would find totally
unacceptable.  And we don't want tests enabled on platforms which
don't support a feature under test, do we?

Andrew.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8172144: AArch64: Implement "JEP 270: Reserved Stack Areas for Critical Sections"

Bob Vandette
The way we currently exclude tests in jtreg is to use @requires and provide specific os names or architectures.
I really don’t want to have 2 different os.arch names for the two 64-bit arm ports.  This would cause issues for
developers switching off of the os.arch names.   So unless we extend jtreg (which we could do at some point)
to provide additional variables to test for,  then we need to stick with the variables that exist.  

It perfectly acceptable for a test to be written in such a way as to verify that a feature exists and return success
when the feature is not available.  That doesn’t appear to be the case in the webrev that you posted.

ps.  This is just my .02, I’m not the grand Poobah for these types of issues.


Bob.



> On Mar 18, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Andrew Haley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 17/03/17 21:01, Bob Vandette wrote:
>> I’m just saying that the test should run on both the Oracle 64-bit
>> ARM port as well as the aarch64 port and shouldn’t be excluded on
>> one or the other implementations.
>
> But you haven't explained why you believe this.  It's not practical to
> keep both implementations in lock-step with regard to features.  At
> least, not without hobbling one of them, which I would find totally
> unacceptable.  And we don't want tests enabled on platforms which
> don't support a feature under test, do we?
>
> Andrew.

Loading...