On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 17:26:55 GMT, Jorn Vernee <jver...@openjdk.org> wrote:

> As discussed in the JBS issue:
> 
> FFM upcall stubs embed a `Method*` of the target method in the stub. This 
> `Method*` is read from the `LambdaForm::vmentry` field associated with the 
> target method handle at the time when the upcall stub is generated. The MH 
> instance itself is stashed in a global JNI ref. So, there should be a 
> reachability chain to the holder class: `MH (receiver) -> LF (form) -> 
> MemberName (vmentry) -> ResolvedMethodName (method) -> Class<?> (vmholder)`
> 
> However, it appears that, due to multiple threads racing to initialize the 
> `vmentry` field of the `LambdaForm` of the target method handle of an upcall 
> stub, it is possible that the `vmentry` is updated _after_ we embed the 
> corresponding `Method`* into an upcall stub (or rather, the latest update is 
> not visible to the thread generating the upcall stub). Technically, it is 
> fine to keep using a 'stale' `vmentry`, but the problem is that now the 
> reachability chain is broken, since the upcall stub only extracts the target 
> `Method*`, and doesn't keep the stale `vmentry` reachable. The holder class 
> can then be unloaded, resulting in a crash.
> 
> The fix I've chosen for this is to mimic what we already do in 
> `MethodHandles::jump_to_lambda_form`, and re-load the `vmentry` field from 
> the target method handle each time. Luckily, this does not really seem to 
> impact performance.
> 
> <details>
> <summary>Performance numbers</summary>
> x64:
> 
> before:
> 
> Benchmark             Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  Units
> Upcalls.panama_blank  avgt   30  69.216 ± 1.791  ns/op
> 
> 
> after:
> 
> Benchmark             Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  Units
> Upcalls.panama_blank  avgt   30  67.787 ± 0.684  ns/op
> 
> 
> aarch64:
> 
> before:
> 
> Benchmark             Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  Units
> Upcalls.panama_blank  avgt   30  61.574 ± 0.801  ns/op
> 
> 
> after:
> 
> Benchmark             Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  Units
> Upcalls.panama_blank  avgt   30  61.218 ± 0.554  ns/op
> 
> </details>
> 
> As for the added TestUpcallStress test, it takes about 800 seconds to run 
> this test on the dev machine I'm using, so I've set the timeout quite high. 
> Since it runs for so long, I've dropped it from the default `jdk_foreign` 
> test suite, which runs in tier2. Instead the new test will run in tier4.
> 
> Testing: tier 1-4

src/hotspot/cpu/riscv/upcallLinker_riscv.cpp line 264:

> 262: 
> 263:   __ block_comment("{ load target ");
> 264:   __ movptr(j_rarg0, (intptr_t) receiver);

Hi @JornVernee , Could you please apply following small add-on change for 
linux-riscv64? As I witnessed build warning with GCC-13. Otherwise, builds fine 
and the newly-added test/jdk/java/foreign/TestUpcallStress.java is passing.


diff --git a/src/hotspot/cpu/riscv/upcallLinker_riscv.cpp 
b/src/hotspot/cpu/riscv/upcallLinker_riscv.cpp
index 5c45a679316..55160be99d0 100644
--- a/src/hotspot/cpu/riscv/upcallLinker_riscv.cpp
+++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/riscv/upcallLinker_riscv.cpp
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ address UpcallLinker::make_upcall_stub(jobject receiver, 
Symbol* signature,
   __ block_comment("} argument shuffle");

   __ block_comment("{ load target ");
-  __ movptr(j_rarg0, (intptr_t) receiver);
+  __ movptr(j_rarg0, (address) receiver);
   __ far_call(RuntimeAddress(StubRoutines::upcall_stub_load_target())); // 
loads Method* into xmethod
   __ block_comment("} load target ");

diff --git a/test/jdk/java/foreign/TestUpcallStress.java 
b/test/jdk/java/foreign/TestUpcallStress.java
index 3b9b1d4b207..40607746856 100644
--- a/test/jdk/java/foreign/TestUpcallStress.java
+++ b/test/jdk/java/foreign/TestUpcallStress.java
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 /*
  * @test
  * @requires jdk.foreign.linker != "FALLBACK"
- * @requires os.arch == "aarch64" & os.name == "Linux"
+ * @requires (os.arch == "aarch64" | os.arch=="riscv64") & os.name == "Linux"
  * @requires os.maxMemory > 4G
  * @modules java.base/jdk.internal.foreign
  * @build NativeTestHelper CallGeneratorHelper TestUpcallBase

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20479#discussion_r1743130094

Reply via email to