harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] HARMONY-1582 - invocation API for DRLVM CHECKPOINT
Date Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:07:09 GMT
can we get a green light from Andrey and any others in the conversation?

geir


Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm working on restoring cunit tests. I already made a good progress
> in that direction. So I expect to have it done soon....
> 
> Evgueni
> 
> On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/4/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > I assume you intend that only the latest patch is applied?
>> Yes. invocation_api.5.patch only.
>> > (And I assume that it would apply cleanly to SVN HEAD)
>> I believe so.
>>
>> Evgueni
>> >
>> > geir
>> >
>> > Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
>> > > Hi All,
>> > >
>> > > I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should resolve remain
>> > > concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > > Evgueni
>> > >
>> > > On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Andrey,
>> > >>
>> > >> I see your points. I think both approaches have advantages and
>> > >> disadvantages. I think it is quite hard to say which approach is
>> > >> better until we play with one VM only. I still feel like introducing
>> > >> one more dependence is better than spreading code which deals with
>> > >> attachment among VM and TM. We really get stuck. OK, just because I
>> > >> want to move forward I will do required changes to remove
>> > >> vm_create_jthread from TM. I believe that will resolve all our
>> > >> disagreements and the patch will be applied soon.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks
>> > >> Evgueni.
>> > >>
>> > >> On 10/4/06, Andrey Chernyshev <a.y.chernyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > On 10/3/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > On 10/3/06, Andrey Chernyshev <a.y.chernyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > Andrey,
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Just to be clear.... I agree with you it is more 
>> convenient if
>> > >> > > > > jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of JavaVM. It 
>> reflects that
>> > >> > > > > current thread has been attached already. Do you think it
>> > >> makes sense
>> > >> > > > > to get rid of JNIEnv and use jthread_get_JNI_env in that 
>> case?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > The jthread_* layer is designed like if it were a regular JNI
>> > >> > > > application which is meant to be called from the Java code, 
>> hence
>> > >> > > > every function on that layer receives JNIenv. We can probably
>> > >> get rid
>> > >> > > > of the JNEnv parameter for jthread_* functions, assuming 
>> that TM
>> > >> can
>> > >> > > > always extract JNIenv for the current thread with
>> > >> > > > jthread_get_JNI_env().
>> > >> > > > My only concern  would be the performance - once the JNIenv is
>> > >> already
>> > >> > > > known for the native part of the kernel classes impl, it 
>> must be
>> > >> > > > cheaper to pass JNIEnv to TM as an extra parameter rather than
>> > >> extract
>> > >> > > > it from the TLS again.
>> > >> > > > Other than that, I see no strong advantages in keeping JNIEnv
>> > >> parameter.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > Regarding jthread_attach. I still didn't get your point....
>> > >> Clarify it
>> > >> > > > > please if you think jhread_attach should be modified.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Sorry for being not clear: I think for jthread_attach, we have
>> > >> two options:
>> > >> > > > 1) Make JNIEnv input parameter - it must be new JNIEnv that VM
>> > >> > > > pre-allocates for the new Java thread.  jthread_attach 
>> would just
>> > >> > > > associate it with the current thread.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > 2) Obtain JNIEnv via vm_attach() callback. In this case, if
>> > >> > > > vm_attach() callback implementation needs to know for which
>> > >> JavaVM new
>> > >> > > > JNIenv has to be allocated, then we'll need to add JavaVM 
>> as input
>> > >> > > > parameter for jthread_attach().
>> > >> > > > I think both options should be fine, (1) would probably 
>> keep TM
>> > >> > > > interface a bit lighter, though (2) may look more closer to 
>> the JNI
>> > >> > > > invocation API idea.
>> > >> > > > So I think adding JavaVM specifically for jthread_attach 
>> may make
>> > >> > > > sense given the explanation you provided earlier.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > The concern I would have regarding the proposed jthread_attach
>> > >> > > > implementation is a call to vm_create_jthread() - this call
>> > >> introduces
>> > >> > > > an extra dependency of TM on vmcore that I'd prefer to be
>> > >> avoided. In
>> > >> > > > the original version, jthread_attach() was taking jthread
>> > >> argument of
>> > >> > > > the already prepared j.l.Thread.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > I understand your concern. Unfortunately I don't see what we 
>> can do
>> > >> > > here. Let me explain. In the beginning you have an unattached 
>> native
>> > >> > > thread. To be able to call java code (which is required for
>> > >> > > constructing j.l.Thread instance) the thread should be attached
>> > >> first.
>> > >> > > To be specific it should be attached to VM by calling 
>> vm_attach which
>> > >> > > will return a valid JNIEnv It is valid to use JNI from that 
>> moment.
>> > >> > > Obtained JNIEnv can be used to execute java code and create
>> > >> j.l.Thread
>> > >> > > instance. Since we do vm_attach in jthread_attach we need to do
>> > >> > > vm_create_jthread inside jthread_atach as well.
>> > >> > > Of course it can be an alternative to do vm_attach and
>> > >> > > vm_create_jthread outside of TM right before jthread_attach. 
>> Sure it
>> > >> > > will reduce one dependence between VM and TM. But it seems like
>> > >> > > artificial action for me just because of dependency....
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Why do you think it is artificial? I would rather prefer not to 
>> throw
>> > >> > vm_attach event from the jthread_attach() call at all than to add
>> > >> > extra dependency. The idea of jthread layer is a Java face to
>> > >> > hythread, it is meant to know either a little or nothing about the
>> > >> > rest of VM. It may be logical to throw vm_attach call from the 
>> newly
>> > >> > created thread, because there is no other way to let know VM 
>> the new
>> > >> > thread is created. VM attach is a different case - VM already 
>> knows
>> > >> > about new Java thread at the time of the AttachCurrentThread call.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Do you think it makes sense to replace a single jthread
>> > >> parameter with
>> > >> > > > a variety of stuff (like thread group, name)? It seems the 
>> only
>> > >> > > > purpose of at these args is to be passed back to VM for
>> > >> > > > vm_jthread_create(). I would suggest to change this and try 
>> doing
>> > >> > > > either of:
>> > >> > > > 1) Make signature of jthread_attach with 3 args, JavaVM, 
>> jthread
>> > >> and the daemon.
>> > >> > > Why do you want to pass daemon to TM but thread's name and 
>> group.
>> > >> Just
>> > >> > > because current TM doesn't need such information? What if it is
>> > >> > > required to get thread name later? Say by introducing
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I imagine you need a daemon attribute since the TM is still 
>> managing
>> > >> > the thread daemonality. TM is not managing thread name and group -
>> > >> > they are all kept on the Java level, hence passing them may be
>> > >> > excessive.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > jthread_get_name... What will you do in that case? Let me 
>> guess you
>> > >> > > will call j.l.Thread.getName. Right. Ok! In that case I see no
>> > >> > > problems to call j.l.Thread.isDaemon. Do you agree? So it 
>> doesn't
>> > >> >
>> > >> > As I suggested earlier, the best way to handle daemonality would
>> > >> > probably be in pure Java - in j.l.Thread (or 
>> j.l.VMThreadManager) or
>> > >> > whatever. You already lifted it up to the jthread level, but 
>> what if
>> > >> > we can go a little bit higher...
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > seems to be a good design to pass only part of the 
>> information to
>> > >> > > jthread_atach. Lets look at the signature of 
>> AttachCurrentThread. It
>> > >> > > takes exactly these three parameters (daemon, name, group) 
>> passed
>> > >> as a
>> > >> > > structure. I was thinking about having exactly the same 
>> structure as
>> > >> > > third parameter of jthread_attach but it occured to be more
>> > >> convinient
>> > >> > > to pass them seperatly. Although I don't see strong reasons 
>> against
>> > >> > > having a structure a third parameter.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I see. Acually, I would love to keep the jthread_attach func-ty 
>> at the
>> > >> > minimum level which will be needed to handle the only data that TM
>> > >> > should be aware of. We need a formal boundary between jthread 
>> layer
>> > >> > and vmcore (otherwise jthread won't have a much of sense, one may
>> > >> > consider it just as a convenience set of functions in vmcore 
>> which are
>> > >> > doing something with threading).
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > 2) Move the implementation of vm_create_jtrhead() to
>> > >> > > > thread_java_basic.c - could it be written in pure JNI 
>> without using
>> > >> > > > internal VM API like class_alloc_new_object()?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Yes, this can be done but it doesn't fix the problem. You 
>> still need
>> > >> > > to know about internal constructor of j.l.Thread
>> > >> >
>> > >> > That's bad. Given what you said, now it seems that the most 
>> preferable
>> > >> > sequence for AttachCurrentThread impl still would be like:
>> > >> > JNIEnv = vm_attach();
>> > >> > jthread = create_jthread(JNIenv)
>> > >> > jthread_attach(JNIEnv, jthread) // stores JNIEnv and Hythread into
>> > >> > TLS, doesn't call vm_attach any longer.
>> > >> > - this is almost what we had from the beginning...
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Thanks,
>> > >> > Andrey.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Thanks
>> > >> > > Evgueni
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Thanks,
>> > >> > > > Andrey.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Thank you
>> > >> > > > > Evgueni
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > On 9/29/06, Andrey Chernyshev 
>> <a.y.chernyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > Artem,
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback.... find my inlined.....
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev <artem.aliev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Evgueni,
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > I got most of your changes, but still disagree 
>> with all
>> > >> > > > > > > > > hythread/jthread interface changes. Could leave
>> > >> interface unchanged.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > See following possible solutions, that could 
>> solve the
>> > >> same problems
>> > >> > > > > > > > > without interface changes.
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > 1) daemon attribute is a java specific. (Andrey
>> > >> mentioned this already).
>> > >> > > > > > > > >   Could you please move it back. to the jthread 
>> layer.
>> > >> It is better
>> > >> > > > > > > > > to rename
>> > >> > > > > > > > >   hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() to
>> > >> > > > > > > > > jthread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads().
>> > >> > > > > > > > Ok, I see no problems to move "daemon" to java 
>> layer. In
>> > >> that case:
>> > >> > > > > > > > 1) I will move 
>> hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads()
>> > >> from
>> > >> > > > > > > > thread_init.c to one which implements java layer.
>> > >> > > > > > > > 2) I will move daemon field from HyThread structure.
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Agree?
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Sounds good to me.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > OK, will do that.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > 2)  JavaVM could be retrieved  from JNIEnv by
>> > >> jni_get_java_vm(). So
>> > >> > > > > > > > > let the jthread_create() and others to use JNIEnv
>> > >> (that is passed from
>> > >> > > > > > > > > java native method).
>> > >> > > > > > > > > The vm_attach could get old JNI env and create 
>> new one
>> > >> for the new thread.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > The first JNIEnv is created in CreateVM call and 
>> could
>> > >> be passed to
>> > >> > > > > > > > > the first thread at startup.
>> > >> > > > > > > > No, no, no. I completely disagree with that!!! Why do
>> > >> you like JNIEnv
>> > >> > > > > > > > but JavaVM. Why do you think that passing JavaVM 
>> instead
>> > >> of JNIEnv
>> > >> > > > > > > > makes TM less modular? I don't see any difference
>> > >> here.... It seems
>> > >> > > > > > > > for me like a big big hack to grab JNIEnv from another
>> > >> thread and pass
>> > >> > > > > > > > it to jthread_attach to perform operations in the
>> > >> current thread.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > TM needs to know JNIEnv, mainly for managing the
>> > >> references to
>> > >> > > > > > > objects, throwing exceptions and calling run() method 
>> of a
>> > >> new thread.
>> > >> > > > > > > JNI spec proposes that JNIEnv is valid within the given
>> > >> thread, this
>> > >> > > > > > > is why TM holds the JNIEnv pointer at the moment. 
>> This is
>> > >> why TM likes
>> > >> > > > > > > the JNIEnv.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Having the JNIEnv, one is able to get JavaVM but not 
>> vise
>> > >> versa. This
>> > >> > > > > > > is why TM doesn't like the JavaVM :)
>> > >> > > > > > I see your point. Only one note this is true for already
>> > >> attached threads...
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > I agree with you that there is a design flaw that the
>> > >> JNIEnv is copied
>> > >> > > > > > > from the parent thread to a child thread during thread
>> > >> creation. I
>> > >> > > > > > > think it could be resolved via vm_attach() hook - with
>> > >> this event, VM
>> > >> > > > > > > might tell the TM what the JNIEnv pointer for new thread
>> > >> should be. I
>> > >> > > > > > > think you did that by extending the vm_attach() call 
>> with
>> > >> the JNIEnv**
>> > >> > > > > > > argument.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > What is not completely clear is, why do you have to pass
>> > >> the JavaVM
>> > >> > > > > > > forth and back, once from VM to TM, and then back 
>> from TM
>> > >> to VM again?
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > If you need to know in jthread_attach, which 
>> particular VM
>> > >> vm_attach()
>> > >> > > > > > > event is coming from, you could have vm_attach like
>> > >> > > > > > > vm_attach(JNIEnv* currentThreadEnv,  JNIEnv** 
>> newThreadEnv).
>> > >> > > > > > I'm a little bit confused.....Current thread hasn't been
>> > >> attached yet.
>> > >> > > > > > So there is no JNIEnv for it yet. How it can be passed as
>> > >> the first
>> > >> > > > > > parameter to vm_attach()?
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Then you will be always able to get the JavaVM from the
>> > >> JNIEnv.
>> > >> > > > > > > The only difference is that you are currently doing
>> > >> JNIEnv->JavaVM
>> > >> > > > > > > conversion in the VMThreadManager, but why can't you 
>> just
>> > >> do this in
>> > >> > > > > > > vm_attach() without changing the interface of the TM?
>> > >> > > > > > > So far JavaVM really looks like an extra knowledge 
>> that TM
>> > >> doesn't
>> > >> > > > > > > have to be aware of.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Moreover there is no JNIEnv when main thread 
>> attaches to
>> > >> VM. So we
>> > >> > > > > > > > should either keep it as is or change original 
>> design of
>> > >> TM and attach
>> > >> > > > > > > > thread to VM before attaching it to TM. In that 
>> case we
>> > >> will have
>> > >> > > > > > > > valid JNIEnv which can be passed to jthread_atatch. We
>> > >> need to think
>> > >> > > > > > > > over it twice before changing something....
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Right. For jthread_attach, JNIenv needs to be changed 
>> from
>> > >> being input
>> > >> > > > > > > parameter to being the output parameter. The way how
>> > >> JNIenv is
>> > >> > > > > > > obtained by TM should be vm_attach() event.
>> > >> > > > > > OK, JNIEnv is output parameter. And it obtained by
>> > >> vm_attach(). This
>> > >> > > > > > is exactly like I do in the patch. What I don't understand
>> > >> is how
>> > >> > > > > > jthread_attach knows to which VM the thread should be
>> > >> attached? Do you
>> > >> > > > > > suggest calling vm_attach first to create JNIEnv it 
>> pass it to
>> > >> > > > > > jthread_attach?
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > 4) Original classlib hythread do not use
>> > >> hythread_library_t in arguments,
>> > >> > > > > > > > > It uses following code:
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >  hythread_library_t lib = GLOBAL_DATA 
>> (default_library);
>> > >> > > > > > > > > or
>> > >> > > > > > > > >  hythread_library_t library = thread->library;
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > So could you please use the same mechanism and 
>> remove
>> > >> hythread_*_ex >functions.
>> > >> > > > > > > > Let's see if classlib's hythread needs changing first.
>> > >> It seems for me
>> > >> > > > > > > > such code prevents us from having multi VM.
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > 5. You introduce more then one jni env, but still 
>> use
>> > >> global variable for it.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > So all changes like following:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > -    JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)jni_native_intf;
>> > >> > > > > > > > > +    JNIEnv *jenv = jni_native_intf;
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > should be like:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > -    JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)jni_native_intf;
>> > >> > > > > > > > > +    JNIEnv *jenv = get_jni_env(jthread_self());
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Ok, I see. I agree that global jni_native_intf should
>> > >> not be used.
>> > >> > > > > > > > There was simple reason why I altered such lines.
>> > >> Because I changed
>> > >> > > > > > > > the type of  jni_native_intf and no casting 
>> operator is
>> > >> needed now. To
>> > >> > > > > > > > be honest I think get_jni_env(jthread_self()) can be
>> > >> good as temporary
>> > >> > > > > > > > solution only. Lets wait for design of multi VM and 
>> fix
>> > >> it according
>> > >> > > > > > > > to it.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > While we are in JNI code, we always have the JNIenv 
>> (at least
>> > >> > > > > > > initially it comes from Java code). If we consider VM 
>> code
>> > >> as if it
>> > >> > > > > > > was a JNI application, then it seems like we should be
>> > >> just passing
>> > >> > > > > > > JNIEnv as a parameter to all functions in VM. Or, we can
>> > >> be taking it
>> > >> > > > > > > from TLS (via jthread_self()), depending on which way is
>> > >> faster...
>> > >> > > > > > Agree.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > 6). And small remarks:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init1(JavaVM_Internal * java_vm,
>> > >> JavaVMInitArgs * vm_arguments);
>> > >> > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init2(JNIEnv_Internal * jni_env);
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Could you make names more meaningful, then 1,2,3...?
>> > >> > > > > > > > Ok, will do that.
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > class VM_thread {
>> > >> > > > > > > > > ...
>> > >> > > > > > > > > +    JNIEnv_Internal * jni_env;
>> > >> > > > > > > > > The jthread already has the jni_env pointer, you do
>> > >> not need to
>> > >> > > > > > > > > duplicate it here.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > forexample by using 
>> jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self());
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Yes I know. I don't see any problems here. Some 
>> times it
>> > >> is much more
>> > >> > > > > > > > convenient to get JNIEnv from VM_thread structure (and
>> > >> faster) instead
>> > >> > > > > > > > of doing jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self()). So I 
>> need
>> > >> strong
>> > >> > > > > > > > arguments for removing it. Again it seems that 
>> should be
>> > >> addressed in
>> > >> > > > > > > > design of multi VM. So lets forget about it for a 
>> while...
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > I think that the data duplication would always serve 
>> as a
>> > >> potential
>> > >> > > > > > > source of errors - while updating one copy of object, 
>> you
>> > >> may forget
>> > >> > > > > > > to update the other, often resulting into a strange
>> > >> behavior of the
>> > >> > > > > > > whole application. Let's see what are the specific
>> > >> performance
>> > >> > > > > > > concerns that have to be addressed. To get VM_thread
>> > >> structure, you
>> > >> > > > > > > would eventually go to the TLS, just like
>> > >> > > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self() would do.
>> > >> > > > > > If there is already VM_thread structure for some reasons
>> > >> then there
>> > >> > > > > > will be no extra access to TLS. It is definitely much 
>> more in
>> > >> > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self() than just one TLS 
>> access
>> > >> and one
>> > >> > > > > > dereferncing. I don't think it is a really big problem 
>> now.
>> > >> Do you
>> > >> > > > > > agree to look at this later. I guess multi VM 
>> implementation
>> > >> will
>> > >> > > > > > alter it in any case.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > > Evgueni
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > > > Andrey.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Artem
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> > >> <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > I suppose two days silence means that there is no
>> > >> objects (maybe
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > interest) against proposed patch. I would 
>> suggest to
>> > >> commit it ASAP.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > It really works! There are some cases when current
>> > >> VM crashes but the
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > patch fixes it. I can work on bringing cunit tests
>> > >> to live as soon as
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > the patch is committed.... This is just my
>> > >> understanding.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > So where are we here?
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Evgueni Brevnov 
>> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Weldon Washburn
>> > >> <weldonwjw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> > >> <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > On 9/27/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> > >> <a.y.chernyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > (3)
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > One more lock is added - 
>> hythread_lib_lock.
>> > >> How is that differ
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> from
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the hythread_global_lock that we already
>> > >> have? Each extra lock
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> to the
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > system may add more possibilities for
>> > >> deadlocks, as well as can
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > negatively impact the scalability (unless
>> > >> some of the existing
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> locks
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > are split).
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_lib_lock acquires exactly the same
>> > >> lock as
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_global_lock. Probably I miss
>> > >> something but we need to be
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > compatible with IBM threading library now.
>> > >> This library has such
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > function. That's why I added it. Sounds 
>> right?
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Well,  this sort of, kind of sounds right but
>> > >> not quite.  Its a
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> little more
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> subtle than being compatible with IBM 
>> threading
>> > >> library.  The
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> first goal is
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> to identify the parts of IBM threading 
>> library
>> > >> that are JVM
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> independent.  It
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> makes sense for DRLVM to be compatible 
>> with the
>> > >> independent
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> parts.   This
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> should be a nobrainer.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> The parts of IBM threading library that 
>> assume
>> > >> a specific JVM
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> will be a problem.  We will need to find a
>> > >> solution that is
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> endorsed by all
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> the stakeholders (including J9 folks).  The
>> > >> hythread_global_lock
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> falls into
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> this category.  For starts, I would like 
>> to see
>> > >> a concise
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> description from
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> the portlib owners on what 
>> hythread_global_lock
>> > >> protects, which
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> locks have
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> to be held before grabbing this lock, are 
>> there
>> > >> any restrictions
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> on what
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> system calls can be made while holding this
>> > >> lock (like sleep or
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> wait), etc.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Weldon, I completely agree with what your are
>> > >> saying. It's common
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > problem of current hythread that should be
>> > >> resolved some how. I just
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > go inline with current implementation and 
>> added
>> > >> two missing functions.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Missing these can lead to the same problems as
>> > >> with hythread_exit
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > discussed  in another thread "[drlvm] 
>> [launcher]
>> > >> Executable hangs".
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> To get a better idea what's in the 
>> patch.diff,
>> > >> I printed it out.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Its 120+
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> pages.  Quite a big patch!  Most of it looks
>> > >> like straight forward
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> JNI
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> interface glue.  There are some tricky parts.
>> > >> I would like to
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> know the
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> design review process for these parts.  Using
>> > >> grep, I found 20
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> locations
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> where ...suspend_enable... and
>> > >> ...suspend_disable... have been
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> added.  And
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> 25 locations where enable/disable have been
>> > >> removed.  Failure in
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> this logic
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> can lead to incorrect reference pointer
>> > >> enumeration.  These are
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> probably the
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> hardest bugs to find.  Please tell us who has
>> > >> looked at this code
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> in depth.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Only me and you :-) Honetsly I think it 
>> happpens
>> > >> now....
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Are there any known design flaws in it?
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I can think of two possible problems we may 
>> want
>> > >> to discuss.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Should native threads have "daemon" 
>> status or
>> > >> its completely java
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > notion? This is TM related thing.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Should we attach thread to VM before
>> > >> attaching it to TM by calling
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > jthread_atatch OR jthread_attach should 
>> callback
>> > >> VM to attach a thread
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to it? I didn't change original design of TM
>> > >> here ...... it implements
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > second choice.
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> I also notice APIs called 
>> tmn_suspend_enable(),
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> hythread_suspend_enable()
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> -- are these simply different names for the
>> > >> same binary
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> executible.  Or
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> different binaries that do the same thing??
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not just different names.
>> > >> tm_suspend_enable asserts that
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > thread is in disabled state before calling
>> > >> hythread_suspend_enable (in
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > debug mode only).
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> --
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Weldon Washburn
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > --
>> > >> > > > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> > >> > > > > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > > Terms of use : 
>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> > >> > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > > Terms of use : 
>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Andrey Chernyshev
>> > >> > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message