On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 02:42:09 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> See CR for details. I also relocated AdaptiveBlocking001.java in the list so
> it is not mixed in with SA tests, and removed
> serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForLargeArray.java since it was moved to the
> resorucehogs directly long ago, a
See CR for details. I also relocated AdaptiveBlocking001.java in the list so it
is not mixed in with SA tests, and removed
serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForLargeArray.java since it was moved to the
resorucehogs directly long ago, and there is already separate entry that
reflects the new locatio
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:58:15 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson
wrote:
>> Forwardport JDK 17 -> JDK 18
>
> Jesper Wilhelmsson has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
> brought in by the merge/rebase.
Looked a
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:28:33 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson
wrote:
> Forwardport JDK 17 -> JDK 18
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 17295b1b
Author:Jesper Wilhelmsson
URL:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/17295b1bb02b2121978f1459b2e75c5e1031e7ea
Stats: 721 l
> Forwardport JDK 17 -> JDK 18
Jesper Wilhelmsson has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
brought in by the merge/rebase.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4484/fil
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:28:33 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson
wrote:
> Forwardport JDK 17 -> JDK 18
Thumbs up!
Thanks for doing this sync forward.
-
Marked as reviewed by dcubed (Reviewer).
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4484
Forwardport JDK 17 -> JDK 18
-
Commit messages:
- 8267579: Thread::cooked_allocated_bytes() hits assert(left >= right) failed:
avoid underflow
- 8268342: java/foreign/channels/TestAsyncSocketChannels.java fails with
"IllegalStateException: This segment is already closed"
- 826863
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 06:10:22 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Would it not be better to read the whole content of /proc/stat with a single
> read() call instead of line by line? I don't think proc fs guarantees any
> kind of consistency with separate reads.
yes, so fgetc's return value should need
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:00:14 GMT, UncleNine
wrote:
> @UncleNine please do not force push commits to an open PR as it makes it
> difficult for reviewers to track the changes. The PR can contain as many
> commits as you like as it will all be squashed to a single clean commit when
> integrating
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:28:34 GMT, UncleNine
wrote:
>>> If the /proc/stat mount point is changed in container environment, the
>>> while loop may lead to 100% cpu usage.
>>
>> In what way have you observed /proc/stat being changed which manifests in
>> 100% cpu usage?
>
>> > If the /proc/stat m
10 matches
Mail list logo