Discussion:
jstack missing frames
tester
2010-05-13 15:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

jstack() produces
com/sun/identity/sm/ServiceConfigImpl.getSubConfig(Lcom/iplanet/sso/SSOToken;Ljava/lang/String;)Lcom/sun/identity/sm/ServiceConfigImpl;
com/sun/identity/sm/ServiceConfig.getSubConfig(Ljava/lang/String;)Lcom/sun/identity/sm/ServiceConfig;
com/sun/identity/idm/plugins/internal/SpecialRepo.sea
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005d7c
0xffffffff780063b8
0xffffffff78005d7c
0xffffffff780062d4
0xffffffff78005d7c
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff780063b8
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff780063b8
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78000240
libjvm.so`__1cJJavaCallsLcall_helper6FpnJJavaValue_pnMmethodHandle_pnRJavaCallArguments_pnGThread__v_+0x1f4
libjvm.so`__1cJJavaCallsEcall6FpnJJavaValue_nMmethodHandle_pnRJavaCallArguments_pnGThread__v_+0x34
libjvm.so`JVM_DoPrivileged+0x974
libjava.so`Java_java_security_AccessController_doPrivileged__Ljava_security_PrivilegedExceptionAction_2Ljava_security_AccessControlContext_2+0x14
0xffffffff7800def4
0xffffffff7800de9c
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005e60
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78005fdc
0xffffffff78000240
libjvm.so`__1cJJavaCallsLcall_helper6FpnJJavaValue_pnMmethodHandle_pnRJavaCallArguments_pnGThread__v_+0x1f4
libjvm.so`__1cJJavaCallsEcall6FpnJJavaValue_nMmethodHandle_pnRJavaCallArguments_pnGThread__v_+0x34

this is using the hotspot provider. I not sure what I am missing where hex addresses are shown. Can this be rectified?

Thanks
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
tester
2010-05-15 23:22:54 UTC
Permalink
this is now solved. Jarod in an earlier post suggested a bigger number of buffer size and string size. I had to go all the way to jstack(160,10240) to a full stack. My testing increments were power of 2, so a smaller may have worked.

Does this mean on a 5440 this becomes a memory hog, since there is a per CPU buffer allocation.?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Jonathan Adams
2010-05-17 16:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by tester
this is now solved. Jarod in an earlier post suggested a bigger
number of buffer size and string size. I had to go all the way to
jstack(160,10240) to a full stack. My testing increments were power of
2, so a smaller may have worked.
Does this mean on a 5440 this becomes a memory hog, since there is a
per CPU buffer allocation.?
These are allocated out of the per-CPU transaction and aggregation buffers,
so they won't cause any additional allocations. Since they use more of those
buffers per entry, they may induce drops, which you would have to increase the
buffer sizes to avoid.

Cheers,
- jonathan

Loading...