RE: RFR(L) 8227745: Enable Escape Analysis for Better Performance in the Presence of JVMTI Agents

Hi Richard, Thanks for the new webrev. The small improvements are fine, too. Reviewed from my side. Best regards, Goetz. > -Original Message- > From: Reingruber, Richard > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 10:33 PM > To: Lindenmaier, Goetz ; serviceability- > d...@openjdk.java.net; h

Re: RFR(S) : 8252477 : nsk/share/ArgumentParser should expect that jtreg "splits" an argument

Hi Igor, In case there may be a parsing error and the command-line is ill-formed, should you abort if you reach the end of the arg list without finding an even number of double-quotes? Or will parseArguments already handle that? Otherwise the changes seem good. Thanks, David - On 28/08/

Re: RFR: 8242427: JVMTI frame pop operations should use Thread-Local Handshakes

Hi David, On 2020/08/28 11:04, David Holmes wrote: Hi Yasumasa, On 28/08/2020 11:24 am, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi David, On 2020/08/27 15:49, David Holmes wrote: Sorry I just realized I reviewed version 00 :( Note that my comments on version 00 in my earlier email still apply. I copied

RFR(S) : 8252477 : nsk/share/ArgumentParser should expect that jtreg "splits" an argument

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8252477/webrev.00/ > 99 lines changed: 19 ins; 20 del; 60 mod; Hi all, could you please review the patch which unblocks the rest of 8219140's (get rid of vmTestbase/PropertyResolvingWrapper) sub-tasks? background from JBS: > jtreg splits command line by s

Re: RFR: 8242427: JVMTI frame pop operations should use Thread-Local Handshakes

Hi Yasumasa, On 28/08/2020 11:24 am, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi David, On 2020/08/27 15:49, David Holmes wrote: Sorry I just realized I reviewed version 00 :( Note that my comments on version 00 in my earlier email still apply. I have concerns with the added locking: MutexLocker mu(Jvmti

Re: 8242427: JVMTI frame pop operations should use Thread-Local Handshakes

On 28/08/2020 11:45 am, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi Richard, Unfortunately I do not have any benchmark for this change, however I think it is worth to do it for consistency. All of VM operations which do not need global lock in JVMTI are replaced to direct handshake if this enhancement is merg

Re: 8242427: JVMTI frame pop operations should use Thread-Local Handshakes

Hi Richard, Unfortunately I do not have any benchmark for this change, however I think it is worth to do it for consistency. All of VM operations which do not need global lock in JVMTI are replaced to direct handshake if this enhancement is merged. I think VM operations should be replaced to

Re: RFR: JDK-8251384: [TESTBUG] jvmti tests should not be executed with minimal VM

Hi Alex, On 28/08/2020 6:29 am, Alex Menkov wrote: Hi David, On 08/26/2020 21:49, David Holmes wrote: Hi Alex, On 21/08/2020 6:54 am, Alex Menkov wrote: Hi Igor, On 08/20/2020 09:23, Igor Ignatyev wrote: HI Alex, one minor nit: according to usual java coding conventions, isJVMTIIncluded

Re: RFR: 8242427: JVMTI frame pop operations should use Thread-Local Handshakes

Hi David, On 2020/08/27 15:49, David Holmes wrote: Sorry I just realized I reviewed version 00 :( I have concerns with the added locking: MutexLocker mu(JvmtiThreadState_lock); Who else may be holding that lock? Could it be our target thread that we have already initiated a handshake with? (

Re: RFR: 8242427: JVMTI frame pop operations should use Thread-Local Handshakes

Hi Patricio, On 2020/08/27 15:20, Patricio Chilano wrote: Hi Yasumasa, On 8/26/20 8:57 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi Patricio, Thanks for your review, but webrev.00 has been rotten. Can you review webrev.02?   webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8242427/webrev.02/     diff betw

RE: RFR(L) 8227745: Enable Escape Analysis for Better Performance in the Presence of JVMTI Agents

Hi Goetz, > I read through your change again. It looks good to me now. > The new naming and additional comments make it > easier to read I think, thank you. Thanks for all your input! > One small thing: > deoptimization.cpp, l. 1503 > You don't really need the brackets. Two lines below you don'

Re: RFR: JDK-8251384: [TESTBUG] jvmti tests should not be executed with minimal VM

Hi David, On 08/26/2020 21:49, David Holmes wrote: Hi Alex, On 21/08/2020 6:54 am, Alex Menkov wrote: Hi Igor, On 08/20/2020 09:23, Igor Ignatyev wrote: HI Alex, one minor nit: according to usual java coding conventions, isJVMTIIncluded should be spelled as isJvmtiIncluded. otherwise the

Re: RFR (S): JDK-8250630 JdwpListenTest.java fails on Alpine Linux

Hi Dmitry, Thank you for the update. The error code from the inet_pton() still is not checked. Thanks, Serguei On 8/27/20 08:03, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Hello Everybody, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8250630/webrev.02/ Webrev is updated, all comments accepted and addressed. Ex

Re: RFR (S): JDK-8250630 JdwpListenTest.java fails on Alpine Linux

Hello Everybody, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8250630/webrev.02/ Webrev is updated, all comments accepted and addressed. Except: > The error code from the inet_pton is not checked. inet_pton performs conversion of the constant value in our case and the only possible reason for i

RE: 8242427: JVMTI frame pop operations should use Thread-Local Handshakes

Hi Yasumasa, > I've described the motivation on JDK-8201641 (it is a parent task of > JDK-8242427) > ``` > Many JVMTI functions uses VM Operation to get information. However some of > them need to stop only one thread - they don't need to stop all threads. > ``` So the goal is better performan