--- a/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/c1_LIRGenerator_aarch64.cpp Mon May 15 12:20:15 2017 +0200
+++ b/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/c1_LIRGenerator_aarch64.cpp Thu May 11 13:11:42 2017 +0100
@@ -1347,6 +1347,16 @@
void LIRGenerator::volatile_field_load(LIR_Address* address, LIR_Opr result,
CodeEmitInfo* info) {
+ // 8179954: We need to make sure that the code generated for
+ // volatile accesses forms a sequentially-consistent set of
+ // operations when combined with STLR and LDAR. Without a leading
+ // membar it's possible for a simple Dekker test to fail if loads
+ // use LD;DMB but stores use STLR. This can happen if C2 compiles
+ // the stores in one method and C1 compiles the loads in another.
+ if (! UseBarriersForVolatile) {
+ __ membar();
+ }
+
__ volatile_load_mem_reg(address, result, info);
}
--- a/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/templateTable_aarch64.cpp Mon May 15 12:20:15 2017 +0200
+++ b/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/templateTable_aarch64.cpp Thu May 11 13:11:42 2017 +0100
@@ -2389,17 +2389,31 @@
const Register obj = r4;
const Register off = r19;
const Register flags = r0;
+ const Register raw_flags = r6;
const Register bc = r4; // uses same reg as obj, so don't mix them
resolve_cache_and_index(byte_no, cache, index, sizeof(u2));
jvmti_post_field_access(cache, index, is_static, false);
- load_field_cp_cache_entry(obj, cache, index, off, flags, is_static);
+ load_field_cp_cache_entry(obj, cache, index, off, raw_flags, is_static);
if (!is_static) {
// obj is on the stack
pop_and_check_object(obj);
}
+ // 8179954: We need to make sure that the code generated for
+ // volatile accesses forms a sequentially-consistent set of
+ // operations when combined with STLR and LDAR. Without a leading
+ // membar it's possible for a simple Dekker test to fail if loads
+ // use LDR;DMB but stores use STLR. This can happen if C2 compiles
+ // the stores in one method and we interpret the loads in another.
+ if (! UseBarriersForVolatile) {
+ Label notVolatile;
+ __ tbz(raw_flags, ConstantPoolCacheEntry::is_volatile_shift, notVolatile);
+ __ membar(MacroAssembler::AnyAny);
+ __ bind(notVolatile);
+ }
+
const Address field(obj, off);
Label Done, notByte, notBool, notInt, notShort, notChar,
@@ -2407,7 +2421,8 @@
// x86 uses a shift and mask or wings it with a shift plus assert
// the mask is not needed. aarch64 just uses bitfield extract
- __ ubfxw(flags, flags, ConstantPoolCacheEntry::tos_state_shift, ConstantPoolCacheEntry::tos_state_bits);
+ __ ubfxw(flags, raw_flags, ConstantPoolCacheEntry::tos_state_shift,
+ ConstantPoolCacheEntry::tos_state_bits);
assert(btos == 0, "change code, btos != 0");
__ cbnz(flags, notByte);
@@ -2529,9 +2544,11 @@
#endif
__ bind(Done);
- // It's really not worth bothering to check whether this field
- // really is volatile in the slow case.
+
+ Label notVolatile;
+ __ tbz(raw_flags, ConstantPoolCacheEntry::is_volatile_shift, notVolatile);
__ membar(MacroAssembler::LoadLoad | MacroAssembler::LoadStore);
+ __ bind(notVolatile);
}
@@ -2979,6 +2996,19 @@
__ null_check(r0);
const Address field(r0, r1);
+ // 8179954: We need to make sure that the code generated for
+ // volatile accesses forms a sequentially-consistent set of
+ // operations when combined with STLR and LDAR. Without a leading
+ // membar it's possible for a simple Dekker test to fail if loads
+ // use LDR;DMB but stores use STLR. This can happen if C2 compiles
+ // the stores in one method and we interpret the loads in another.
+ if (! UseBarriersForVolatile) {
+ Label notVolatile;
+ __ tbz(r3, ConstantPoolCacheEntry::is_volatile_shift, notVolatile);
+ __ membar(MacroAssembler::AnyAny);
+ __ bind(notVolatile);
+ }
+
// access field
switch (bytecode()) {
case Bytecodes::_fast_agetfield:
@@ -3027,6 +3057,22 @@
__ get_cache_and_index_at_bcp(r2, r3, 2);
__ ldr(r1, Address(r2, in_bytes(ConstantPoolCache::base_offset() +
ConstantPoolCacheEntry::f2_offset())));
+
+ // 8179954: We need to make sure that the code generated for
+ // volatile accesses forms a sequentially-consistent set of
+ // operations when combined with STLR and LDAR. Without a leading
+ // membar it's possible for a simple Dekker test to fail if loads
+ // use LDR;DMB but stores use STLR. This can happen if C2 compiles
+ // the stores in one method and we interpret the loads in another.
+ if (! UseBarriersForVolatile) {
+ Label notVolatile;
+ __ ldrw(r3, Address(r2, in_bytes(ConstantPoolCache::base_offset() +
+ ConstantPoolCacheEntry::flags_offset())));
+ __ tbz(r3, ConstantPoolCacheEntry::is_volatile_shift, notVolatile);
+ __ membar(MacroAssembler::AnyAny);
+ __ bind(notVolatile);
+ }
+
// make sure exception is reported in correct bcp range (getfield is
// next instruction)
__ increment(rbcp);