Hi Rob,

This is only a superficial scan.

The changes in java/java/makefile look pretty horrible. What are all those -R entries?

We will need equivalent changes for the new build system before this is pushed.

Is the spawn use BSD specific (as per UnixProcess.java.BSD) or Apple specific (as per __APPLE_ in UNIXProcess_md.c) ?

Are the UnixProcess.java files similar enough that we could use a single template and generate the per-OS variants?

In UNIXProcess_md.c:

209 #ifdef _CS_PATH
 210     char *pathbuf;
 211     size_t n;
 212     n = confstr(_CS_PATH,NULL,(size_t) 0);
 213     pathbuf = malloc(n);
 214     if (pathbuf == NULL)
 215         abort();
 216     confstr(_CS_PATH, pathbuf, n);
 217     return pathbuf;
 218 #else

what is _CS_PATH and why are we calling abort()? !!!!

What is all the xx_ naming ??

David
-----


On 23/11/2012 7:27 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi folks,

Looking for a review for the webrev below, which also resolves:

7175692: (process) Process.exec should use posix_spawn [macosx]

For additional context and a brief description it would be well worth
looking at the following thread started by Michael McMahon, who did the
brunt of the work for this fix:

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-May/thread.html#1644


Basically the fix aims to swap fork for posix_spawn as the default
process launch mechanism on Solaris and Mac OSX in order to avoid swap
exhaustion issues encountered with fork()/exec(). It also offers a flag
(java.lang.useFork) to allow a user to revert to the old behaviour.

I'm having trouble seeing the wood for the trees at this point so I'm
anticipating plenty of feedback. In particular I'd appreciate some
discussion on:

- The binary launcher name & property name may need some work. A more
general property ("java.lang.launchMechanism") to allow a user to
specify a particular call was mooted too. It may be more future proof
and I'm completely open to that. (e.g.
launchMechanism=spawn|fork|vfork|clone - we would obviously ignore
inapplicable values on a per-platform basis)
- I'd like a more robust way of checking that someone isn't trying to
use jprochelper outside of the context for which it is meant.
- The decision around which call to use getting moved to the java level
and away from the native preprocessor.

The webrev is at:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/5049299/webrev.01/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erobm/5049299/webrev.01/>

Thanks a lot,

-Rob

Reply via email to