On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 22:54:09 GMT, Leonid Mesnik <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The cur_stack_depth is the cache that is maintained in interponly mode to 
>> optimize getting number of thread in the debugger operations.
>> 
>> Historically, it cause a lot of issues. Most oftenly, related with wrong 
>> calculation in the case if stack depth changed during yield or stack 
>> debugger operations. Also, there is a gep between decrement of 
>> cur_stack_depth and actual stack change where cur_stack_depth is invalid. 
>> 
>> The current problem happens when operations like PopFrame  or 
>> ForceEarlyReturn happen when MethodExit is completed and cur_stack_depth is 
>> decremented while physical stack is not removed yet.  It is reproduced by 
>> internal stress test.
>> 
>> We discussed privately with @sspitsyn and there is an idea that this cache 
>> is not worth to maintain. It is used in interp-only mode which is slow 
>> already. Really this cur_stack_depth() is not so often used and quite often 
>> invalidated.
>> 
>> Currently, the function is uses in 3 places:
>> 
>> 1. JvmtiExport::continuation_yield_cleanup, where 
>> invalidate_cur_stack_depth() is called right before cur_stack_depth(), 
>> making the caching useless. So no performance degradation here is expected. 
>> 2. In the post_method_exit_inner when 'ets->has_frame_pops()' is true. And 
>> actually it might crash in this place. This happens when NotifyFramePop 
>> event is requested. It doesn't require the interponly mode after fix of 
>> [JDK-6960970](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6960970) Debugger very 
>> slow during stepping 
>> 3. JvmtiThreadState::process_pending_step_for_popframe which is called in 
>> UpdateForPopTopFrameClosure during PopFrame when performance is not 
>> important. Also, the crash happens when 'process_pending_step_for_popframe' 
>> is executed while cache doesn't correspond the actual state.
>> 
>> 
>> So I wonder if there are any scenario when the impact of the removal of 
>> cur_stack_depth is so significant that it makes sense to still maintain it?
>> 
>> i am running tier1-8 and some internal stress testing to verify this fix.
>> 
>> ---------
>> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the 
>> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
>
> Leonid Mesnik has updated the pull request incrementally with three 
> additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - re-fix to exclude only popframe/forceearlyreturn
>  - Revert "8383879"
>    
>    This reverts commit 437bf25c9b53308b1b236ca1863677b478e8fd49.
>  - Revert "removed unused constant"
>    
>    This reverts commit 0ae016428f5f810aaa3c1e061125e9e6d9069fa9.

Here is more conservative version of the fix. The stack cache invalidate only 
for specific operations. 
it doesn't affect performance as the complete cache removal.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31389#issuecomment-4696143334

Reply via email to