JDK-8152298 : "guarantee(seq->num() > 0) failed" in G1CollectorPolicy::predict_yg_surv_rate
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: hotspot
  • Sub-Component: gc
  • Affected Version: 9
  • Priority: P2
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Duplicate
  • OS: linux
  • CPU: x86
  • Submitted: 2016-03-21
  • Updated: 2016-06-20
  • Resolved: 2016-06-20
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
JDK 9
9Resolved
Related Reports
Relates :  
JDK-8151256 - JVM crash in CompactibleSpace::adjust_pointers(), intermittently
Relates :  
JDK-8139594 - Some G1 policy code tries to get a prediction on an empty sequence
Relates :  
JDK-8152695 - SEGV in g1_mark_as_young
Relates :  
JDK-8152552 - SEGV in G1PLABAllocator
Description
While trying to reproduce JDK-8151256, this failure occurred a couple of times in about 100K runs:

#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
#  Internal Error (g1CollectorPolicy.cpp:1374), pid=18338, tid=18386
#  guarantee(seq->num() > 0) failed: There should be some young gen survivor samples available. Tried to access with age 32
#
# JRE version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (9.0+107) (build 9-ea+107-2016-02-24-205307.javare.4520)
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (9-ea+107-2016-02-24-205307.javare.4520, mixed mode, tiered, compressed oops, g1 gc, linux-amd64)

The other instance was with "age 6" rather than 32.

Seems unrelated to JDK-8151256. Does seem related to JDK-8139594 .  It didn't occur in fastdebug runs (yet).
Comments
With the fix for JDK-8152499 (G1ResManAllocator::_context_hwm is not incremented in thread safe manner) I've run for a week (about 600k runs) without hitting this or any of the other 3 types of failures I'd seen running this test.
31-03-2016