On Fri, 14 May 2021 03:53:27 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> There used to be 2 writeInterger(0), and the second one is write the segment
>> size with dummy value 0. I will add a comment here. Thanks
>
> Ok, I missed that. I think where a comment is needed is with the first
> `writerInteger(0)`. I
> This fixes a race condition in the CompressionBackend class of the heap dump
> code.
>
> The race happens when the thread iterating the heap wants to write the data
> it has collected. If the compression backend has worker threads, the buffer
> to write would just be added to a queue and the
On Fri, 14 May 2021 07:14:07 GMT, Ralf Schmelter wrote:
>> This fixes a race condition in the CompressionBackend class of the heap dump
>> code.
>>
>> The race happens when the thread iterating the heap wants to write the data
>> it has collected. If the compression backend has worker threads,
> 8262386: resourcehogs/serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForLargeArray.java timed
> out
Lin Zang 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. The pull request contains 16 additi
On Fri, 14 May 2021 02:28:17 GMT, Lin Zang wrote:
>> 8262386: resourcehogs/serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForLargeArray.java timed
>> out
>
> Lin Zang 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 i
On Wed, 12 May 2021 08:04:47 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Please consider this change which removes the manual transitions to blocked.
>> This adds a preprocess template/functor which is executed in the destructor
>> of 'ThreadBlockInVM' if we are going to do any processing.
>> This gives us a way
On Fri, 14 May 2021 09:41:08 GMT, Lin Zang wrote:
>> 8262386: resourcehogs/serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForLargeArray.java timed
>> out
>
> Lin Zang 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 i
On Fri, 14 May 2021 07:14:07 GMT, Ralf Schmelter wrote:
>> This fixes a race condition in the CompressionBackend class of the heap dump
>> code.
>>
>> The race happens when the thread iterating the heap wants to write the data
>> it has collected. If the compression backend has worker threads,
On Wed, 12 May 2021 08:04:47 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Please consider this change which removes the manual transitions to blocked.
>> This adds a preprocess template/functor which is executed in the destructor
>> of 'ThreadBlockInVM' if we are going to do any processing.
>> This gives us a way
On Fri, 14 May 2021 04:45:36 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> Overall it looks good. Some minor suggestions, most of which can be ignored
> if you wish.
Thanks for the review. I made some of the changes, but not all of them.
> Is there a reason these tests were not placed under
> test/jdk/java/la
> The synopsis pretty much says it all. There's a more detailed history in the
> RFE itself.
>
> Currently running the new test thru Mach5 Tier[1-7].
> I've run the test thru several 12 hour runs on my MBP13 and
> on my Linux-X64 server.
Daniel D. Daugherty has updated the pull request increment
On Fri, 14 May 2021 21:54:46 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/monitoring/ThreadInfo/getLockOwnerName/getLockOwnerName.java
>> line 150:
>>
>>> 148: System.err.println("where:");
>>> 149: System.err.println("-p ::= print debug info")
On Fri, 14 May 2021 22:04:05 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/monitoring/ThreadInfo/getLockOwnerName/getLockOwnerName.java
>> line 329:
>>
>>> 327: // - releases threadLock
>>> 328: //
>>> 329: if (getName().equals("blocker")) {
>>
>
> The synopsis pretty much says it all. There's a more detailed history in the
> RFE itself.
>
> Currently running the new test thru Mach5 Tier[1-7].
> I've run the test thru several 12 hour runs on my MBP13 and
> on my Linux-X64 server.
Daniel D. Daugherty has updated the pull request increment
On Thu, 13 May 2021 18:01:27 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> When reviewing this new test, is it worth comparing it with counter based
>> tests that it was based on, or is it best just to view it as a completely
>> new test.
>
>> @plummercj - Are you still planning to review this new test?
>
> Ye
On Fri, 14 May 2021 22:41:28 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> It's a grammar notational style from my compiler theory days.
>> I've used '::=' and ':=' for years. What would you like it changed to?
>> Or can I just leave it and try to use '-' in the future?
>
> The convention for java tools seems to
> `jhsdb debugd` supports server name prefix with
> `sun.jvm.hotspot.rmi.serverNamePrefix` system property. It will be used as
> remote name for SA RMI object. It is "SARemoteDebugger" by default.
>
> As a result, remote name will be constructed as following:
>
>
> //host[:port]/['_']
>
>
>
On Sat, 15 May 2021 02:00:15 GMT, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>> `jhsdb debugd` supports server name prefix with
>> `sun.jvm.hotspot.rmi.serverNamePrefix` system property. It will be used as
>> remote name for SA RMI object. It is "SARemoteDebugger" by default.
>>
>> As a result, remote name will
On Fri, 14 May 2021 23:58:03 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> The synopsis pretty much says it all. There's a more detailed history in the
>> RFE itself.
>>
>> Currently running the new test thru Mach5 Tier[1-7].
>> I've run the test thru several 12 hour runs on my MBP13 and
>> on my Linux-X
19 matches
Mail list logo
