harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xiao-Feng Li" <xiaofeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Reminder: stable build goal at end of month
Date Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:07:47 GMT
On 4/18/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's wait until the patch from Xiao-Feng is integrated, and if
> failures disappear and
> no new failures appear, let's switch our default

Right, this is also what I think. :-)

Thanks,
xiaofeng


> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2007/4/18, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
> > So how about we switch to GCv5 today as the default?  If things look
> > good then we are all happy, and if new problems are immediately apparent
> > we drop back to Old Faithful.
> >
> > Best that we get everyone testing on the proposed code asap.  Of course,
> > anything that misses this milestone can be a candidate for the next
> > (which we haven't discussed yet, but IMHO should be in 6-8 weeks time
> > after M1).  It is not a full release.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> > Xiao-Feng Li wrote:
> > > Vladimir, thanks, this is what I observed as well. They are coming
> > > from a same bug, and the patch will be submitted in one or two hours,
> > > so I don't worry about it. :-)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > xiaofeng
> > >
> > > On 4/18/07, Vladimir Ivanov <ivavladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> It is just my statistics:
> > >>
> > >> WinXP, ia32:
> > >> Classlib tests: passed
> > >> DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests:
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Field5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Method5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.ThreadTest;
> > >>   org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest
> > >>
> > >> Linux, ia32:
> > >> Classlib tests: java.awt.font.LineBreakMeasurerTest failed
> > >> DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests:
> > >>   java.lang.ThrowableTest – hang (int mode)
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Field5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Method5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.ThreadTest;
> > >>   org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest
> > >>
> > >> Linux, em64t:
> > >> Classlib tests: list of failed tests
> > >>   java.awt.CanvasRTest – hang
> > >>   javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicListUITest - hang
> > >>   javax.swing.JSliderTest
> > >>   javax.swing.JTableRTest
> > >>   javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicFileChooserUITest
> > >>   javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicFormattedTextFieldUITest
> > >>   javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicIconFactoryTest
> > >>
> > >> DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests:
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Field5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.reflect.Method5Test;
> > >>   java.lang.ThreadTest;
> > >>   org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest
> > >> and
> > >>   All JVMTI tests using interpreter
> > >> -------------
> > >> SIGSEGV in VM code.
> > >> Stack trace:
> > >>   0: jthread_monitor_enter
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/thread/src/thread_java_monitors.c:145)
> > >>
> > >>   1: vm_monitor_enter_default
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/thread/mon_enter_exit.cpp:115)
> > >>
> > >>   2: vm_monitor_enter_wrapper(ManagedObject*)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/interpreter/interp_imports.cpp:30)
> > >>
> > >>   3: Opcode_MONITORENTER(StackFrame&)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:2277)
> > >>
> > >>   4:
> > >> org/apache/harmony/fortress/security/SecurityUtils.putContext(Ljava/lang/Thread;Ljava/security/AccessControlContext;)V
> > >>
> > >> (SecurityUtils.java:76)
> > >>   5: interpreterInvokeStatic
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:3318)
> > >>
> > >>   6: Opcode_INVOKESTATIC(StackFrame&)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:2105)
> > >>
> > >>   7:
> > >> java/lang/Thread.<init>(Ljava/lang/ThreadGroup;Ljava/lang/String;JJIZ)V
> > >> (Thread.java:253)
> > >>   8: interpreter_execute_method(Method*, jvalue*, jvalue*)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:3211)
> > >>
> > >>   9: JIT_execute_method
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interp_exports.cpp:167)
> > >>
> > >>  10: DrlEMImpl::executeMethod(_jmethodID*, jvalue*, jvalue*)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/em/src/DrlEMImpl.cpp:510)
> > >>
> > >>  11: ExecuteMethod
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/em/src/em_intf.cpp:44)
> > >>  12: vm_execute_java_method_array(_jmethodID*, jvalue*, jvalue*)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jit/ini.cpp:56)
> > >>
> > >>  13: vm_create_jthread
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/vm_init.cpp:560)
> > >>
> > >>  14: vm_attach_internal(JNIEnv_External**, _jobject**,
> > >> JavaVM_External*, _jobject*, char*, unsigned char)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/vm_init.cpp:601)
> > >>
> > >>  15: attach_current_thread
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jni/jni.cpp:1519)
> > >>
> > >>  16: AttachCurrentThreadAsDaemon(JavaVM_External*, void**, void*)
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jni/jni.cpp:1548)
> > >>
> > >>  17: finalizer_thread_func
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/finalizer_thread.cpp:204)
> > >>
> > >>  18: thread_start_proc
> > >> (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/thread/src/thread_native_basic.c:716)
> > >>
> > >>  19: start_thread (??:-1)
> > >> <end of stack trace>
> > >> -------------
> > >>
> > >>  thanks, Vladimir
> > >>
> > >> On 4/18/07, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > I think that we make GCv5 default a week before the milestone since
it
> > >> > gives us some benefits.
> > >> > And if we discover any stability or other issues we always can switch
> > >> > it back before the milestone.
> > >> >
> > >> > SY, Alexey
> > >> >
> > >> > 2007/4/18, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > In addition to specs and eclipse, there are the tests that come
with
> > >> > > "build test". Are there any more tests we are worried about?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I understand the risk of switching before an event, but we will
have
> > >> > > to do it at some point. Not much point in writing it and then
not
> > >> > > using it. Doing it still gives us a few weeks before Java One
to see
> > >> > > if there are problems. How about running it as default for a
week
> > >> > > before we decide?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 4/17/07, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > It's quite risky to switch right before the show.
> > >> > > > Xiao-Feng, what workloads you tried with gcv5 except specs
and
> > >> eclipse?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > +
> > >> > > > I'm working on "lazy resolution" task in both JITs now and
going
> > >> to  submit
> > >> > > > the patch this week for
> > >> > > > review. I think its commit  should be delayed for a few
weeks until
> > >> > > > JavaOne is finished.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On 4/18/07, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On 4/18/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Do you think we should switch before "end of month"?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Yes, that's my suggestion.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > It's certainly a risk, but what is the value in
the switch?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > The risk is minimal since GCv5 is rather stable, and
to the
> > >> least we
> > >> > > > > have command line option to switch back; but the value
is
> > >> substantial
> > >> > > > > since people can have an advanced, scalable, modular,
> > >> flexible, high
> > >> > > > > performance GC, which I think both runtime researchers
and
> > >> users would
> > >> > > > > like to try, based on my interactions with Harmony
users.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > To demo Harmony, GC is one component that we'd like
to have a
> > >> good
> > >> > > > > story to tell. GCv5 can tell a good story since it
has
> > >> subsumed almore
> > >> > > > > all the recent advances in GC area (for stop-the-world
GC),
> > >> and has a
> > >> > > > > variable of innovations. Importantly, GCv5 can differentiate
> > >> > > > > multi-core platforms with its scalable parallelisms.
:-)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > xiaofeng
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > Mikhail
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 2007/4/18, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > GCv5 might be one "major" that we want to
put as default
> > >> GC in DRLVM.
> > >> > > > > > > It still has some issues pending, but overall
I think the
> > >> stability is
> > >> > > > > > > good enough for a switch next week.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Since GC is designed with good modularity,
we can simply
> > >> choose which
> > >> > > > > > > GC implementation to use in command line
with
> > >> > > > > > > '-XX:vm.dlls=the_gc_module.dll(so)". This
is neat that
> > >> helps the
> > >> > > > > > > switch a lot: If GCv5 has some problem running
a workload,
> > >> we can
> > >> > > > > > > specify -XX:vm.dlls=gc_cc.dll in command
line.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > So far the known bugs in GCv5 are not with
some workloads,
> > >> but related
> > >> > > > > > > with certain test cases for finalizer and
VM threading.
> > >> And I think
> > >> > > > > > > they are going to be resolved before next
week.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > xiaofeng
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On 4/16/07, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > Just a reminder, as discussed in various
threads, we
> > >> shall aim to
> > >> > > > > > > > produce a solid build for Windows and
Linux x86 (at
> > >> least) at the
> > >> > > > > end of
> > >> > > > > > > >  next week; so that we have something
to demo at
> > >> ApacheCon and
> > >> > > > > JavaOne
> > >> > > > > > > > that is a true reflection of our current
capabilities.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Of course, the Milestone will be simply
a snapshot,
> > >> carrying our
> > >> > > > > usual
> > >> > > > > > > > caveats.  The idea is that with conference
talks taking
> > >> place we may
> > >> > > > > > > > expect a few people to download a build
and try it
> > >> around that time,
> > >> > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > > > being in the middle of a major restructuring
would
> > >> potentially do us
> > >> > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > > > injustice.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Most commits still seem to be on-going
bug fixing, so
> > >> that's all
> > >> > > > > > > > goodness.  If you are planning on anything
'major'
> > >> please ensure
> > >> > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > > > is enough time to get it stable, or
please wait until
> > >> after the
> > >> > > > > > > > milestone build.  Similarly, if there
is anything that
> > >> is currently
> > >> > > > > > > > 'broken' that you think really needs
fixing for that
> > >> stability,
> > >> > > > > please
> > >> > > > > > > > shout here on the list.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > There are still two weeks to go, I think
the paranoia
> > >> about not
> > >> > > > > causing
> > >> > > > > > > > regressions will really kick-in next
week :-)
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > Tim
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Mikhail Fursov
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message