On 7/2/2010 11:56 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Hi Dan,
I don't know what AnonLoggerWeakRefTest looks like,
Check out the webrevs in the review requests. I included the
tests in the those reviews.
but I am fairly
confident that if you create a few million loggers and then drop down
to one or two
Hi Dan,
I don't know what AnonLoggerWeakRefTest looks like, but I am fairly
confident that if you create a few million loggers and then drop down
to one or two, the backing array of the Hashtable will still be bigger
than it should be.
Still, no real harm done - that's a fairly unusual situation.
Jeremy,
Closing the loop on this part of the thread. I don't think there are
any more leaks left after the fix is applied. Here are the entries
I added the "public comments" section of the bug. For some reason
that bug is _still_ not showing up on the OpenJDK site.
=== *Public Comments* ===
On 6/24/2010 9:35 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 21 June 2010 22:29, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
David H. and Alan B.,
Since you two were first round code reviewers, it would be good to hear
from you guys on the second round.
Jeremy,
It would also be good to hear from you since you had a
On 21 June 2010 22:29, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> David H. and Alan B.,
>
> Since you two were first round code reviewers, it would be good to hear
> from you guys on the second round.
>
> Jeremy,
>
> It would also be good to hear from you since you had also fixed this
> bug in Google's code bas
On 6/23/2010 12:38 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I'm sorry I missed this (I heavily filter these lists, and check rarely).
This time I specifically left you on the "To" list rather than
editing down to just the list aliases.
My main feeling is that you are missing a good bet by not
Hi Daniel,
I'm sorry I missed this (I heavily filter these lists, and check rarely).
My main feeling is that you are missing a good bet by not
reconstructing the Hashtable in LogManager and the ArrayList in Logger
every so often when you remove the loggers. In a test case where
there are a LOT o
On 6/22/2010 2:34 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Here is the URL for the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6942989-webrev/1/
Thanks, in advance, for any reviews.
Sorry for the late reply. Using the reference queue is much better.
I've looked through the new
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Here is the URL for the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6942989-webrev/1/
Thanks, in advance, for any reviews.
Sorry for the late reply. Using the reference queue is much better. I've
looked through the new webrev and the approach seems reasonable.
Folks,
We missed the T&L JDK7-B100 cutoff which was Monday @ 1800 PT.
That means this fix will hit the various update releases before
it hits JDK7. At this point, I'm really going to need those
re-reviews in order to make a good case that this fix can go
into an update without bake time in JDK7.
David H. and Alan B.,
Since you two were first round code reviewers, it would be good to hear
from you guys on the second round.
Jeremy,
It would also be good to hear from you since you had also fixed this
bug in Google's code base.
At this point, I've heard from Eamonn McManus and Tony Printe
Credit where credit is due...
That was David Holmes *and* Alan Bateman that were politely pushing me
to put limits on the number of Logger objects being cleaned up...
Dan
On 6/18/2010 1:25 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I have a new version of my fix for the WeakReference leak in
Greetings,
I have a new version of my fix for the WeakReference leak in the
Logging API done. This version uses ReferenceQueues; thanks to Eamonn
McManus, Jeremy Manson and Tony Printezis for their insights on using
ReferenceQueues. Here's a pointer to Tony's paper for background info:
http:
Revisiting this e-mail now that I've completed a first pass
at a ReferenceQueue implementation.
On 6/11/2010 10:36 AM, Eamonn McManus wrote:
I think an alternative approach to the one here would be to use a
global ReferenceQueue and a subclass of WeakReference that has a
pointer back to the Log
Okay. It sounds as if the changes were helpful, anyway. I'll be
interested to see what you do.
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
> On 6/14/2010 12:36 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> We're happy to contribute. Like you, we had a customer complaint,
On 6/14/2010 12:36 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Daniel,
We're happy to contribute. Like you, we had a customer complaint,
which is why this happened.
And I see that you did this work against an earlier bug. I've
made myself the RE for 6931561 and I've update the evaluation
to indicate that I'm
Daniel,
We're happy to contribute. Like you, we had a customer complaint,
which is why this happened.
My suspicion is that we don't have access to the VM/NSK test suite.
Feel free to run the patch against it.
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
> On 6/14/2010 1
On 6/14/2010 11:30 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Daniel,
The fix hasn't made it to OpenJDK6. We were planning on pushing it to
OpenJDK6/7, but we haven't had time for it yet. If your fix is better
(I haven't had a chance to look at it), then we'll happily drop ours
in favor of yours.
I will be
Daniel,
The fix hasn't made it to OpenJDK6. We were planning on pushing it to
OpenJDK6/7, but we haven't had time for it yet. If your fix is better
(I haven't had a chance to look at it), then we'll happily drop ours
in favor of yours.
For testing: I hand tested it with the "create lots of anon
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 6/11/2010 2:09 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
The theory is that there shouldn't be too many Logger objects in a
normal system and
once they have been added, then this fix doesn't come into play.
I would be surprised if a real system had more th
On 6/11/2010 4:41 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 14:46, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
Jeremy,
I'm definitely interested in learning about your approach to this issue.
Here's the patch against openjdk6 by Jeremy.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/WeakLogger-jeremyman
On 6/11/2010 2:39 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Either of those schemes would be fine, but not for this fix and
not without a good reason to do so. The theory is that there
shouldn't be too many Logger objects in a normal system and
once they have been added, then this fix
On 6/11/2010 2:09 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
The theory is that there shouldn't be too many Logger objects in a
normal system and
once they have been added, then this fix doesn't come into play.
I would be surprised if a real system had more than 100 Logger
objects.
FYI
On 6/11/2010 2:02 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Eamonn McManus wrote:
I think an alternative approach to the one here would be to use a
global ReferenceQueue and a subclass of WeakReference that has a
pointer back to the Logger or LogNode that contains this
WeakReference. Then, in the cases where yo
Eamonn,
Thanks for the review! I didn't know about ReferenceQueues so that's
a very interesting idea. I guess I need to get out of the VM codebase
a little more often... :-)
Jumping ahead in the e-mail thread, Jeremy Manson from Google has
offered the use of their fix for the problem. It looks l
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 14:46, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> I'm definitely interested in learning about your approach to this issue.
Here's the patch against openjdk6 by Jeremy.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/WeakLogger-jeremymanson.patch
(It would take a bit of merging to port to
Jeremy,
I'm definitely interested in learning about your approach to this issue.
Dan
On 6/11/2010 12:55 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
We also fixed this bug internally at Google (sending the patch out was
a TODO, but we never got around to it). If you have any interest in
comparing / contrasting
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Either of those schemes would be fine, but not for this fix and
not without a good reason to do so. The theory is that there
shouldn't be too many Logger objects in a normal system and
once they have been added, then this fix doesn't come into play.
I would be surpris
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
The theory is that there shouldn't be too many Logger objects in a
normal system and
once they have been added, then this fix doesn't come into play.
I would be surprised if a real system had more than 100 Logger
objects.
FYI. AWT creates a number of loggers (see
Eamonn McManus wrote:
I think an alternative approach to the one here would be to use a
global ReferenceQueue and a subclass of WeakReference that has a
pointer back to the Logger or LogNode that contains this
WeakReference. Then, in the cases where you currently check for stale
entries, you c
We also fixed this bug internally at Google (sending the patch out was
a TODO, but we never got around to it). If you have any interest in
comparing / contrasting approaches, let us know.
Jeremy
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I need a couple of cod
I think an alternative approach to the one here would be to use a global
ReferenceQueue and a subclass of WeakReference that has a pointer back
to the Logger or LogNode that contains this WeakReference. Then, in the
cases where you currently check for stale entries, you could simply poll
the Re
On 6/11/2010 7:18 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Here is the URL for the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6942989-webrev/0/
I went through the changes too.
Thanks!
I agree with the performance concern with expunging stale entries each
time a LogManager
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Here is the URL for the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6942989-webrev/0/
I went through the changes too.
I agree with the performance concern with expunging stale entries each
time a LogManager is created. Would it make sense to do this once every
On 6/10/2010 8:10 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Daniel D. Daugherty said the following on 06/11/10 11:50:
On 6/10/2010 7:08 PM, David Holmes wrote:
I wonder about the performance implications of doing this search
each time a logger is added? These types of cleanups are always a
fine line between min
Daniel D. Daugherty said the following on 06/11/10 11:50:
On 6/10/2010 7:08 PM, David Holmes wrote:
I wonder about the performance implications of doing this search each
time a logger is added? These types of cleanups are always a fine line
between minimizing cleanup up on the main path, and en
On 6/10/2010 7:08 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Dan,
I'm surprised to see that the VM team "owns" this one :)
I'm on the "Serviceability Team". We get all the strange
technology areas... :-)
Daniel D. Daugherty said the following on 06/11/10 03:13:
I need a couple of code reviews for my fix f
Hi Dan,
I'm surprised to see that the VM team "owns" this one :)
Daniel D. Daugherty said the following on 06/11/10 03:13:
I need a couple of code reviews for my fix for the WeakReference leak
in the Logging API. The webrev is relative to OpenJDK7, but the bug
is escalated so the fix will be ba
Greetings,
I need a couple of code reviews for my fix for the WeakReference leak
in the Logging API. The webrev is relative to OpenJDK7, but the bug
is escalated so the fix will be backported to the JDK6-Update train.
That's why I need at least two code reviewers.
Here is the URL for the webrev:
39 matches
Mail list logo
