harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][stacks] How large is stack size limit?
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:33:39 GMT
+1 to both

On 12/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> So there really are two issues here, that I can see :
>
> 1) SOE test should be fixed - if the thing throws an SOE, it passes.  If
> it does something else, it fails (unless the number is too small... in
> which case the test should probably log it, double and try again...)
>
> 2) predictable and settable stack size.  This is something completely
> different, and we should have a separate test for it.
>
> geir
>
>
> Pavel Afremov wrote:
> > FYI
> >
> > Stack size doesn't depend on -Xss  setting now. DRLVM doesn't support
> it.
> >
> > Also DRLVM doesn't crash on the test, it throws SOE.
> >
> >
> >
> > Pavel.
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2006 21:34:31 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On the 0x23C day of Apache Harmony Elena Semukhina wrote:
> >> > On 12/11/06, Pavel Afremov <pavel.n.afremov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Elena,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > You wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >   RI*: 3689
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > It's mean that test is failed on RI, isn't it?
> >> > >
> >> > > So 7000 isn't correct for RI. Let's change it to 3000. And test
> >> start's
> >> > > pass
> >> > > on our VM.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It will fail in the interpreter mode :(.
> >> >
> >> > Since this functionality depends on implementation, the test may pass
> >> here
> >> > and fail there.
> >> > I'd like to hear from DRLVM gurus that e.g. the test is incorrect
> >> because
> >> > the stack size limit in the DRLVM is restricted to some value which
> >> cause
> >> > StackOverflowError and the correct number in the test should be XXX.
> I
> >> know
> >> > that 200 is acceptable :) but should it be larger?
> >>
> >> stack size limit in DRLVM depends on:
> >> * mode (opt/jet/int)
> >> * -Xss (default) setting
> >> * the test itself and current set of optimizations like inlining
> >> heuristics which are subject to constant change
> >>
> >> the question is: do we want a test that would fail often due to
> >> various (valid) configuration changes in DRLVM? I think, no. Though,
> >> it makes sense to create a stress test with intensive stack usage, on
> >> which we should not crash.
> >>
> >> > Elena
> >> >
> >> > Pavel.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 12/11/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Pavel,
> >> > >
> >> > > what is incorrect in the test?
> >> > >
> >> > > It passes on windows on IBM VME and JRockit. As for the magic
> number
> >> 7000,
> >> > > I
> >> > > think the author of the test considered it quite satisfactory . In
> >> the
> >> > > comments to the test he wrote that an alternative java craches with
> >> > > 200000:).
> >> > >
> >> > > The JVM Spec reads:
> >> > > * If the computation in a thread requires a larger Java virtual
> >> machine
> >> > > stack than is permitted, the Java virtual machine throws a
> >> > > StackOverflowError.
> >> > >
> >> > > So throwing StackOverflowError is legal and the stack size limit
> >> depends
> >> > > on
> >> > > implementation. The question is whether the test has to pass on the
> >> > > current
> >> > > DRLVM implementation. If it fails legally, then we should fix the
> >> test
> >> so
> >> > > that it reflects the status quo.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Elena
> >> > >
> >> > > On 12/11/06, Pavel Afremov <pavel.n.afremov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think that test is invalid. It doesn't pass on windows RI ,
so
> ┘
> >> no
> >> > > > comments. Also it is not clear why depth should be 7000. I can
> find
> >> this
> >> > > > magic value in any spec.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Pavel Afremov.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 12/11/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Hello all,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The smoke test stress.Stack fails with StackOverflowError
on
> >> Windows
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > linux/INT. It passes only on linux/JIT now.
> >> > > > > The test algorithm is simple: a method calls itself recursively
> >> for
> >> > > 7000
> >> > > > > times. The test fails if StackOverflowError is thrown.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The following are the numbers of iterations before the test
> >> fails:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Windows:
> >> > > > > INT: 353
> >> > > > > JET: 3963
> >> > > > > OPT: 32264
> >> > > > > RI*: 3689
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Linux:
> >> > > > > INT: 587
> >> > > > > JET: 7762
> >> > > > > OPT: 72105 (!!!)
> >> > > > > RI*: 61837
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > *RI is Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition
(build
> >> > > > > 1.5.0_08-b03
> >> > > > > ).
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Are these numbers expected? Are there any restrictions on
stack
> >> size
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > DRLVM?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Elena
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Elena
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Elena
> >>
> >> --
> >> Egor Pasko
> >>
> >>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message