Hi Jaroslav,
Thanks for the comments. I think they are valid, but I would prefer to do them
in a separate changeset if that is ok with you?
I still need a JDK 8u Reviewer to look at this.
/Staffan
On 4 sep 2014, at 18:56, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> Hi Staffan,
>
>
> On 09/03/2014 02:27 PM,
Hi Staffan,
On 09/03/2014 02:27 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
…nd the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8044398-8039173-8044135-jdk8u/webrev.00/
I have just nits, probably not important because this is a backport and
it should not differ from the original patch if not really necessary.
Looks good for me!
On 2014-09-04 19:59, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you so much, Dmitry!
>
> I've created webrev for it.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8057556/webrev.0/
>
> Please review.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> (2014/09/04 21:26), Dmitry Samersoff wro
Hi all,
Thank you so much, Dmitry!
I've created webrev for it.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8057556/webrev.0/
Please review.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
(2014/09/04 21:26), Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Yasumasa,
>
> The CR number is JDK-8057556
>
> I'll care about it's integration.
>
> -Dm
Looks good Stefan!
best regards,
-- daniel
On 9/4/14 4:34 PM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
Hi all,
Please review this patch to make these tests a bit more stable. I've
changed the code to always allocate objects that are larger than the
young gen size.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8057174/w
Hi all,
Please review this patch to make these tests a bit more stable. I've
changed the code to always allocate objects that are larger than the
young gen size.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8057174/webrev.00/
I've tested this by running the tests through jprt.
thanks,
StefanK
Now I'm considering something about ptrace. Our kernel version is
2.6.32-279. Maybe it doesn't resume the threads correctly. Is it related to
http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel/commit/?h=openSUSE-13.1&id=d1f26676dad578a65c94782f0c2bd00b7aa68f1b
?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, tobe wrote:
Thank @mikael for replying. But I can see the complete message "Server
compiler detected" and expect the JVM to continue. It's wired that this
doesn't happen when jinfo the new processes.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Staffan Larsen
wrote:
>
> On 2 sep 2014, at 11:15, Mikael Gerdin wrote:
>
And I see this
http://ebergen.net/wordpress/2008/06/25/ptrace-on-threads-and-linux-signal-handling-issues/
.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:37 PM, tobe wrote:
> Now I'm considering something about ptrace. Our kernel version is
> 2.6.32-279. Maybe it doesn't resume the threads correctly. Is it related
Just like what @mikael said, running jstack -F has the same behaviour while
jstack doesn't. But our processes have been suspended for several days and
it's quite abnormal. I think there's something preventing the processes
from recovering. Is it related to our running environment or jdk1.6?
On Tu
Hi @martijn. Do you mean you can run jmap and jinfo on the Java process
which has ran over 25 days? Have you checked the status of that process?
Our 1.6 jvms were suspended but not exited.
If it's the issue on 1.6, can anyone help to find out that issue and patch?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:38 PM,
On 4 sep 2014, at 14:09, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Staffan,
>
> On 2014-09-04 16:02, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>
>> On 4 sep 2014, at 13:52, Dmitry Samersoff
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Staffan,
>>>
>>> WindowsVirtualMachine.java:109 Should we close PipedInputStream ?
>>
>> There is a catch-statement t
Yasumasa,
The CR number is JDK-8057556
I'll care about it's integration.
-Dmitry
On 2014-09-02 18:52, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to use JDP on my Fedora20 machine.
> My machine has two NICs and only one NIC is up.
>
> I passed system properties as below, however JDP broa
Staffan,
On 2014-09-04 16:02, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>
> On 4 sep 2014, at 13:52, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>
>> Staffan,
>>
>> WindowsVirtualMachine.java:109 Should we close PipedInputStream ?
>
> There is a catch-statement that does this for IOExceptions on line 125. Since
> AttachOperationFai
On 4 sep 2014, at 13:52, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Staffan,
>
> WindowsVirtualMachine.java:109 Should we close PipedInputStream ?
There is a catch-statement that does this for IOExceptions on line 125. Since
AttachOperationFailedException is an IOException it the pipe will get closed
there.
Staffan,
WindowsVirtualMachine.java:109 Should we close PipedInputStream ?
Otherwise looks good.
-Dmitry
On 2014-09-04 14:11, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> Can I interest any Reviewers in taking a look at this?
>
> Thanks,
> /Staffan
>
> On 3 sep 2014, at 14:27, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>
>> …nd
Can I interest any Reviewers in taking a look at this?
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 3 sep 2014, at 14:27, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> …nd the link:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8044398-8039173-8044135-jdk8u/webrev.00/
>
> /Staffan
>
> On 3 sep 2014, at 14:25, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>
>> This is
17 matches
Mail list logo
