8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file #1563

r-v-raghav · 2020-12-02T14:29:35Z

Request help to review this 8238812 fix.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238812

Found the root cause of the problem as that the following type
two If checks are not folded into one for the sample test:

170 ConI === 0 [[ 171 ]] #int:31
171 CmpI === _ 144 170 [[ 172 179 ]]
172 Bool === _ 171 [[ 173 ]] [ne]

173 If === 158 172 [[ 176 177 ]]
176 IfFalse === 173 [[ 168 ]] #0
177 IfTrue === 173 [[ 180 ]] #1
179 Bool === _ 171 [[ 180 ]] [lt]

180 If === 177 179 [[ 181 182 ]]
181 IfTrue === 180 [[ 168 ]] #1
182 IfFalse === 180 [[ 218 ]] #0

Where 144 is the value and the ifs check for:
value != 31
value < 31

Now if we reach 182 IfFalse, the following holds:
value != 31 && !(value < 31)
=> value != 31 && value >= 31
=> value > 31

But the type of value (144) becomes #int:16..31 :
140 ConI === 0 [[ 141 ]] #int:2
135 Phi === 534 481 528 [[ ... ]] #int:1..4 #tripcount
141 LShiftI === _ 135 140 [[ 142 ]] #int:4..16
143 ConI === 0 [[ 144 ]] #int:11
142 AddI === _ 141 135 [[ 144 500 485 ]] #int:5..20
144 AddI === _ 142 143 [[ ... ]] #int:16..31

And that means that value > 31 is always false and should be folded.
The root cause of the bug is that this does not happen.
Understood that the fix by Tobias for JDK-8236721 should optimize exactly above type cases
https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/9c53fdf6ba63

Found the IfNode::fold_compares optmization (and 8236721 related changes by Tobias)
is not called for 180-If, after the type of 144-AddI is set to #int:16..31.
because the _worklist is not correctly updated!

Proposed changes helped to add the required If node to _worklist (after the correct type setting of related value)
and with this change no failure due to existing fold_compares optimization happening later on.
Sample test passed and found no issues with various tier testing.

/reviewer credit thartmann

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

JDK-8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file

Reviewers

Tobias Hartmann (@TobiHartmann - Reviewer)

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1563/head:pull/1563
$ git checkout pull/1563

bridgekeeper · 2020-12-02T14:30:20Z

👋 Welcome back rraghavan! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2020-12-02T14:30:56Z

@r-v-raghav The command reviewer cannot be used in the pull request body. Please use it in a new comment.

openjdk · 2020-12-02T14:31:23Z

@r-v-raghav The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

hotspot-compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2020-12-02T14:35:00Z

Webrevs

r-v-raghav · 2020-12-03T06:47:42Z

Now added the new test case missed earlier.

r-v-raghav · 2020-12-03T06:47:57Z

/reviewer credit thartmann

openjdk · 2020-12-03T06:48:03Z

@r-v-raghav
Reviewer thartmann successfully credited.

TobiHartmann

Otherwise looks good.

TobiHartmann · 2020-12-03T13:48:10Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/phaseX.cpp

      if (use_op == Op_CmpI) {
+        // Put If on worklist to enable fold_compares optimization (see IfNode::cmpi_folds)
+        if (use->outcnt() > 0) {
+          for (uint i = 0; i < use->outcnt(); i++) {


The use->outcnt() > 0 check is redundant and you could use DUIterator_Fast instead of raw_out. Also, bol could have multiple if users. For an example, see code in countedloop_phi_from_cmp.

TobiHartmann · 2020-12-03T13:55:13Z

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/c2/Test8238812.java

+ * @bug 8238812
+ * @summary Fix c2 assert(false) failed: bad AD file
+ * @run main/othervm -XX:CompileCommand=compileonly,compiler.c2.Test8238812::test
+ *                   -XX:CompileCommand=dontinline,compiler.c2.Test8238812::test


I don't think the dontinline statement is required if we are only compiling that method anyway, right?

openjdk · 2020-12-03T13:56:01Z

@r-v-raghav This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file

Reviewed-by: thartmann

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 58 new commits pushed to the master branch:

fa58671: 8257020: [JVMCI] enable a JVMCICompiler to specify which GCs it supports
129c377: 8257594: C2 compiled checkcast of non-null object triggers endless deoptimization/recompilation cycle
e4497c9: 8256718: Obsolete the long term deprecated and aliased Trace flags
4a267f1: 8244847: Linux/PPC: runtime/CompressedOops/CompressedClassPointers: smallHeapTest fails
b44a329: 8256864: [windows] Improve tracing for mapping errors
ae1eb28: 8257604: JNI_ArgumentPusherVaArg leaks valist
4169d96: 8257143: Enable JVMCI code installation tests on AArch64
a5a034b: 8257617: TestLinkPlatform fails with new Java source version
d80ae05: 8166596: TLS support for the EdDSA signature algorithm
3932527: 8257466: Improve enum iteration
... and 48 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/b5ce8af3d7f991c0cea7b2380469fd30f3030670...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

r-v-raghav · 2020-12-04T09:08:44Z

Please note suspending this PR review for now.
When tried testing the comment modifications from Tobias, started getting the same 'assert bad AD file' failure for the new testcase. On further testing got the same failure even with original fix, intermittently.
So now working to find what was missing.

bridgekeeper · 2021-01-01T11:12:18Z

@r-v-raghav This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

bridgekeeper · 2021-01-29T14:09:00Z

@r-v-raghav This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it!

8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file

527628e

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Dec 2, 2020

openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler [email protected] label Dec 2, 2020

8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file

f3e3eca

openjdk bot added rfr Pull request is ready for review and removed rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Dec 3, 2020

8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file

98eccfa

TobiHartmann approved these changes Dec 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Dec 3, 2020

bridgekeeper bot closed this Jan 29, 2021

r-v-raghav deleted the JDK-8238812 branch February 22, 2021 18:05

8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file #1563

8238812: assert(false) failed: bad AD file #1563

Uh oh!

Conversation

r-v-raghav commented Dec 2, 2020 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Download

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 2, 2020

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

r-v-raghav commented Dec 3, 2020

Uh oh!

r-v-raghav commented Dec 3, 2020

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann Dec 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TobiHartmann Dec 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

r-v-raghav commented Dec 4, 2020

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 1, 2021

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 29, 2021

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

r-v-raghav commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading