Uploaded image for project: 'JDK'
  1. JDK
  2. JDK-8259061

C2: assert(found) failed: memory-writing node is not placed in its original loop or an ancestor of it


    • Subcomponent:
    • Resolved In Build:




        The attached program Store.java triggers an assertion failure when compiled by C2 as follows:

        $ java -Xcomp -XX:-TieredCompilation -XX:CompileOnly=Store Store.java
        # Internal Error (../../src/hotspot/share/opto/block.cpp:1241), pid=73942, tid=73955
        # assert(found) failed: memory-writing node is not placed in its original loop or an ancestor of it


        The assertion is triggered within an OSR compilation that enters right before
        the innermost loop in Store.java. The "memory-writing" node referred to in the
        assertion failure is a store corresponding to "out = 42" ("94 storeImmI" in the
        attached CFG store-actual.pdf). GCM moves the store from a loop preheader P
        (B19) into its corresponding loop L ({B20, B21, B22, B23, B25, B26}) since both
        P and L have the same estimated execution frequency. The reason L has the same
        estimated frequency as P is that L exits (to B27) when the "break" is *not*
        taken, which has 100% probability as "cond" is always false. Note that, due to
        the special CFG shape in OSR compilations and to loop optimizations (strip
        mining and "pre-main-post" splitting), L does not naturally correspond to a
        single source-level loop in Store.java.

        The attached store-expected.pdf shows a slight variation of the CFG (with
        different estimated frequencies) where the "94 storeImmI" store is placed in B19
        as expected.

        The assertion failure is well-founded, as the movement of "94 storeImmI" into
        B20 (header of L) violates the invariant that memory values do not interfere
        after scheduling [1]. However, in this case the violation does not lead to C2
        generating wrong code. Refining the assertion to capture only cases that lead to
        wrong code generation would likely require a more sophisticated analysis
        involving value and liveness analysis for memory values.

        An enhancement is proposed in JDK-8258894 to avoid the interference violation in
        the general case, after which the assertion should always hold.

        [1] More specifically, in the program point after "94 storeImmI"
        (store-actual.pdf), the memory values defined by both "94 storeImmI" and "96
        Phi" are live and thus interfere. In contrast, in store-expected.pdf, the memory
        value defined by "96 Phi" dies when it is used by "94 storeImmI".


        The attached fuzzer test fails with the following assertion introduced in JDK-8255763:

        To reproduce:
        java -Xcomp -Xbatch -XX:-TieredCompilation -XX:CompileOnly=Test Test.java

        # A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
        # Internal Error (/opt/mach5/mesos/work_dir/slaves/983c483a-6907-44e0-ad29-98c7183575e2-S14607/frameworks/1735e8a2-a1db-478c-8104-60c8b0af87dd-0196/executors/0fdf7e75-5e08-44a9-915d-9a12af821c8b/runs/b7ec209c-74e8-4daf-8366-5f29cccf9200/workspace/open/src/hotspot/share/opto/block.cpp:1241), pid=14717, tid=14731
        # assert(found) failed: memory-writing node is not placed in its original loop or an ancestor of it
        # JRE version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (16.0+30) (fastdebug build 16-ea+30-2130)
        # Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (fastdebug 16-ea+30-2130, compiled mode, sharing, compressed oops, g1 gc, linux-amd64)
        # Problematic frame:
        # V [libjvm.so+0x6b7d36] PhaseCFG::verify() const+0x6c6
        Command Line: -Xmx1G -Xcomp -Xbatch -XX:-TieredCompilation -XX:CompileOnly=Test -XX:CompileCommand=quiet Test
        Current thread (0x00007ffb00495ac0): JavaThread "C2 CompilerThread0" daemon [_thread_in_native, id=14731, stack(0x00007ffae23fc000,0x00007ffae24fd000)]

        Current CompileTask:
        C2: 11947 7 % b Test::mainTest @ 172 (614 bytes)

        Stack: [0x00007ffae23fc000,0x00007ffae24fd000], sp=0x00007ffae24f8320, free space=1008k
        Native frames: (J=compiled Java code, A=aot compiled Java code, j=interpreted, Vv=VM code, C=native code)
        V [libjvm.so+0x6b7d36] PhaseCFG::verify() const+0x6c6
        V [libjvm.so+0xa0ea44] Compile::Code_Gen()+0x2c4
        V [libjvm.so+0xa19ad7] Compile::Compile(ciEnv*, ciMethod*, int, bool, bool, bool, bool, DirectiveSet*)+0x1917
        V [libjvm.so+0x849d8c] C2Compiler::compile_method(ciEnv*, ciMethod*, int, bool, DirectiveSet*)+0x1dc
        V [libjvm.so+0xa29808] CompileBroker::invoke_compiler_on_method(CompileTask*)+0xe88
        V [libjvm.so+0xa2a458] CompileBroker::compiler_thread_loop()+0x5a8
        V [libjvm.so+0x18bb296] JavaThread::thread_main_inner()+0x256
        V [libjvm.so+0x18c1c10] Thread::call_run()+0x100
        V [libjvm.so+0x15a3d06] thread_native_entry(Thread*)+0x116


          1. FuzzerUtils.java
            13 kB
          2. hs_err_pid14717.log
            174 kB
          3. Store.java
            0.5 kB
          4. store-actual.pdf
            47 kB
          5. store-expected.pdf
            47 kB
          6. Test.java
            8 kB

            Issue Links



                • Assignee:
                  rcastanedalo Roberto Castaneda Lozano
                  chagedorn Christian Hagedorn
                • Votes:
                  0 Vote for this issue
                  4 Start watching this issue


                  • Created: