Re: RFR: 8327460: Compile tests with the same visibility rules as product code [v2]

2024-03-10 Thread David Holmes
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:43:00 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Currently, our symbol visibility handling for tests are sloppy; we only >> handle it properly on Windows. We need to bring it up to the same levels as >> product code. This is a prerequisite for >>

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v2]

2024-03-10 Thread Jaikiran Pai
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 10:17:23 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> Eirik Bjørsnøs has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Use getAndSetReference instead of getAndSetObject in >>

Re: RFR: 8322420: [Linux] cgroup v2: Limits in parent nested control groups are not detected [v7]

2024-03-10 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:02:12 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > I'm surprised that the hierarchical memory limit look-up wouldn't see it for > v1. Either way, using the traversal approach you'd see that `foo/bar` has `2 > GB`, when traversing up the hierarchy you'd see `1 GB` for `foo` and use that

Re: RFR: 8322420: [Linux] cgroup v2: Limits in parent nested control groups are not detected [v7]

2024-03-10 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:20:20 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > One goal of this patch would be to unify how this works for cgroup v1 and > cgroup v2. That is not much possible anyway as currently cgroup2 has to traverse the directories while after the kernel patch gets accepted it will be faster

Re: RFR: 8322420: [Linux] cgroup v2: Limits in parent nested control groups are not detected [v7]

2024-03-10 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:15:09 GMT, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> The testcase requires root permissions. >> >> Designed by Severin Gehwolf, implemented by Jan Kratochvil. > > Jan Kratochvil has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now

Re: RFR: 8322420: [Linux] cgroup v2: Limits in parent nested control groups are not detected [v7]

2024-03-10 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:32:46 GMT, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > After internal discussion I have realized the patch has overgrown its > intended scope. And one should also consider how easy it would be for a > backport down to JDK-8. I am going to split it into: > > 1. cgroup1 bugfix to always

Re: RFR: 8322420: [Linux] cgroup v2: Limits in parent nested control groups are not detected [v8]

2024-03-10 Thread Jan Kratochvil
> The testcase requires root permissions. > > Designed by Severin Gehwolf, implemented by Jan Kratochvil. Jan Kratochvil has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 35 commits: - Fix whitespace - Merge branch 'master' into

Re: RFR: 8322420: [Linux] cgroup v2: Limits in parent nested control groups are not detected [v7]

2024-03-10 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:37:22 GMT, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > One goal of this patch would be to unify how this works for cgroup v1 and > > cgroup v2. > > That is not much possible anyway as currently cgroup2 has to traverse the > directories while after the kernel patch gets accepted it will

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v3]

2024-03-10 Thread Doug Lea
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 13:47:06 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote: >> Please review this PR which removes the 19 deprecated `xxObject*` alias >> methods from `jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe`. >> >> These methods were added in JDK-8213043 (JDK 12), presumably to allow >> `jsr166.jar` to be used across JDK

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v2]

2024-03-10 Thread Eirik Bjørsnøs
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 12:18:02 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: > Yes, you'll need to run all tests to make sure that there aren't any others, > e.g. test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/stable/TestUnstableStable.java. I've updated `TestUnstableStable` to use `putReference` and also fixed a stray code comment

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v3]

2024-03-10 Thread Eirik Bjørsnøs
> Please review this PR which removes the 19 deprecated `xxObject*` alias > methods from `jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe`. > > These methods were added in JDK-8213043 (JDK 12), presumably to allow > `jsr166.jar` to be used across JDK versions. This was a follow-up fix after > JDK-8207146 had renamed

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v2]

2024-03-10 Thread Alan Bateman
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 08:24:42 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote: > GHA revealed two call sites for `getAndSetObject` in the test > `test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/shenandoah/compiler/TestUnsafeLoadStoreMergedHeapStableTests.java`. > > I have replaced these with the `getAndSetReference`, grepped for any >

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v2]

2024-03-10 Thread Jaikiran Pai
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 08:14:02 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote: >> Please review this PR which removes the 19 deprecated `xxObject*` alias >> methods from `jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe`. >> >> These methods were added in JDK-8213043 (JDK 12), presumably to allow >> `jsr166.jar` to be used across JDK

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v2]

2024-03-10 Thread Eirik Bjørsnøs
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 08:14:02 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote: >> Please review this PR which removes the 19 deprecated `xxObject*` alias >> methods from `jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe`. >> >> These methods were added in JDK-8213043 (JDK 12), presumably to allow >> `jsr166.jar` to be used across JDK

Re: RFR: 8327729: Remove deprecated xxxObject methods from jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe [v2]

2024-03-10 Thread Eirik Bjørsnøs
> Please review this PR which removes the 19 deprecated `xxObject*` alias > methods from `jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe`. > > These methods were added in JDK-8213043 (JDK 12), presumably to allow > `jsr166.jar` to be used across JDK versions. This was a follow-up fix after > JDK-8207146 had renamed