Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:59:26 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this enhancement to the container detection code which allows >> it to figure out whether the JVM is actually running inside a container >> (`podman`, `docker`, `crio`), or with some other means that e

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v4]

2024-06-07 Thread Severin Gehwolf
situation of > claiming a containerized system being present when it's actually just a > regular Linux system. > > Testing: > > - [x] GHA (risc-v failure seems infra related) > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 of cgroups v1 and cgroups v2 (including > gtests) > - [x]

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v3]

2024-06-03 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 3 May 2024 16:05:30 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this enhancement to the container detection code which allows >> it to figure out whether the JVM is actually running inside a container >> (`podman`, `docker`, `crio`), or with some other means that e

Re: RFR: 8333301: Remove static builds using --enable-static-build

2024-05-31 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 30 May 2024 19:14:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > The original way of building static libraries in the JDK was to use the > configure argument --enable-static-build, which set the value of the make > variable STATIC_BUILD. (Note that this is not the same as the source code >

Re: Stepping in debugger switches to interpretation mode

2024-05-31 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 2024-05-31 at 14:44 +0200, Maksim Zuev wrote: > Dear Sir/Madam, > > I encountered a problem while debugging the code. I am attaching the > reproducer to this email in the Main.java file. > > When running it with the debugger without stepping, the application > runs in less than a second

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-05-03 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 3 May 2024 15:58:11 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/LauncherHelper.java line 375: >> >>> 373: if (!c.isContainerized()) { >>> 374: ostream.println(INDENT + "System not containerized.");

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container

2024-05-03 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:56:23 GMT, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > Anyway in this patch one could unify naming across variables/parameters, the > same value is called `_is_ro`, `is_read_only`, `ro_opt`, `read_only`, `ro`. I've tried to unify the naming a bit. Thanks for the review! - PR

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v3]

2024-05-03 Thread Severin Gehwolf
situation of > claiming a containerized system being present when it's actually just a > regular Linux system. > > Testing: > > - [x] GHA (risc-v failure seems infra related) > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 of cgroups v1 and cgroups v2 (including > gtests) &

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-05-03 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:21:29 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote: > Why return here? Because it's not useful to see containerized settings (other than the cg version in use) after this patch. The JVM won't use them (uses the physical settings instead). Why would you want to show the settings?

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-05-03 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:16:33 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf 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 conta

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-05-03 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:10:08 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote: >> src/hotspot/os/linux/cgroupSubsystem_linux.cpp line 351: >> >>> 349: // >>> 350: // We collect the read only mount option in the cgroup infos so as >>> to have that >>> 351: // info ready when determining is_containerized().

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-04-19 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:08:02 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this enhancement to the container detection code which allows >> it to figure out whether the JVM is actually running inside a container >> (`podman`, `docker`, `crio`), or with some other means that e

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-04-18 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:27:38 GMT, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > Could not we rename `is_containerized()` to `use_container_limit()` ? As that > is the current only purpose of `is_containerized()`. I'm not sure. There is value to have `is_containerized()` like it would behave after this patch.

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-04-18 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 01:07:04 GMT, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >>> IMHO `is_containerized()` is OK to return `false` even when running in a >>> container but with no limitations set. >> >> The idea here is to use this property to tune OpenJDK for in-container, >> specifically k8s, use. In such a

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-04-16 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:40:46 GMT, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > IMHO `is_containerized()` is OK to return `false` even when running in a > container but with no limitations set. The idea here is to use this property to tune OpenJDK for in-container, specifically k8s, use. In such a setup it's

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container [v2]

2024-04-11 Thread Severin Gehwolf
situation of > claiming a containerized system being present when it's actually just a > regular Linux system. > > Testing: > > - [x] GHA (risc-v failure seems infra related) > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 of cgroups v1 and cgroups v2 (including > gtests) &

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container

2024-04-11 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:55:36 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Please review this enhancement to the container detection code which allows > it to figure out whether the JVM is actually running inside a container > (`podman`, `docker`, `crio`), or with some other means that enforces >

Re: RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container

2024-03-22 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:55:36 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Please review this enhancement to the container detection code which allows > it to figure out whether the JVM is actually running inside a container > (`podman`, `docker`, `crio`), or with some other means that enforces >

RFR: 8261242: [Linux] OSContainer::is_containerized() returns true when run outside a container

2024-03-11 Thread Severin Gehwolf
Please review this enhancement to the container detection code which allows it to figure out whether the JVM is actually running inside a container (`podman`, `docker`, `crio`), or with some other means that enforces memory/cpu limits by means of the cgroup filesystem. If neither of those

Re: RFR: 8226919: attach in linux hangs due to permission denied accessing /proc/pid/root

2024-02-12 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:40:04 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote: > One more question, can I do anything to help getting this backported to e.g. > 21 and 17? First, I suggest to wait a few weeks in order to see if there are any follow-up bugs which show up in testing in mainline. Then start

Re: RFR: 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated capabilities

2024-02-05 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:47:22 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote: > 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated > capabilities This looks good to me, but would like for somebody from the serviceability group to look at this as well. @plummercj perhaps? > _Mailing list

Re: RFR: 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated capabilities

2024-01-31 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated >> capabilities > > `test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability` tests would also be worth running. > Hi @jerboaa, thanks a lot for the hints! The

Re: RFR: 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated capabilities

2024-01-30 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:47:22 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote: > 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated > capabilities `test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability` tests would also be worth running. - PR Comment:

Re: RFR: 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated capabilities

2024-01-30 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:57:09 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote: > I have poked around in the JDK sources but not found any tests related to > this. Is there some prior art to look at? Please run container tests, which do some jcmd testing across containers (host system runs `jcmd` and containers

Re: RFR: 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because OOM killed [v3]

2024-01-23 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:04:43 GMT, sendaoYan wrote: >> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in >> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail >> because OOM killed > > sendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last

Re: RFR: 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because OOM killed [v2]

2024-01-23 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 01:58:40 GMT, sendaoYan wrote: >> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in >> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail >> because OOM killed > > sendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last

Re: RFR: 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because OOM killed

2024-01-22 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:31:43 GMT, sendaoYan wrote: > 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in > jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because > OOM killed `1k` increments for a total of `512k` times seems overkill. Are you sure that's needed to make the test

Re: RFR: 8314940: Use of NIO in JDKs Metrics implementation causes issues in GraalVM

2023-08-28 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 15:29:32 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: > > @AlanBateman Is there anything else you need me to do? If so, please let me > > know. Thanks! > > I don't think the JDK is the right place to workaround this issue. Also, we > really need to get back re-implementing FileInputStream and

Withdrawn: 8314940: Use of NIO in JDKs Metrics implementation causes issues in GraalVM

2023-08-28 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 13:16:16 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Please review this rather trivial fix to not use `nio` in `CgroupUtil`, part > of the > JDK's Metrics API. The primary motivating factor is that it allows one to use > the > JDK's version of `Metrics` in Graal

Re: RFR: 8314940: Use of NIO in JDKs Metrics implementation causes issues in GraalVM

2023-08-28 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:04:28 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >>> Something fishy here, is this working around a bug in GraaVM native image >>> or why does this change need to be in JDK? >> >> I've now realized that the bug had an incorrect statement in the >> description. The cycle happens due to

Re: RFR: 8314940: Use of NIO in JDKs Metrics implementation causes issues in GraalVM

2023-08-25 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:04:28 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: > In this case, it seems a bit fragile to do it in CgroupUtil as it should be > allowed to use any of the file system APIs to access cgroups or proc files. In theory, yes. It should be able to use any file system APIs. Practically, it

Re: RFR: 8314940: Use of NIO in JDKs Metrics implementation causes issues in GraalVM

2023-08-24 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 13:37:36 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: > Something fishy here, is this working around a bug in GraaVM native image or > why does this change need to be in JDK? I've now realized that the bug had an incorrect statement in the description. The cycle happens due to the

RFR: 8314940: Use of NIO in JDKs Metrics implementation causes issues in GraalVM

2023-08-24 Thread Severin Gehwolf
Please review this rather trivial fix to not use `nio` in `CgroupUtil`, part of the JDK's Metrics API. The primary motivating factor is that it allows one to use the JDK's version of `Metrics` in GraalVM. See the bug for details as to why this is needed. Testing: - [x] GraalVM builds

Re: RFR: 8308090: Add container tests for on-the-fly resource quota updates [v2]

2023-06-02 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 23 May 2023 09:04:11 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review these test changes which implement automatic testing of >> container resource updates without JVM restart. Note that this merely tests >> container detection code handling this case. It doesn't d

Integrated: 8308090: Add container tests for on-the-fly resource quota updates

2023-06-02 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 22 May 2023 16:40:40 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Please review these test changes which implement automatic testing of > container resource updates without JVM restart. Note that this merely tests > container detection code handling this case. It doesn't do anythin

Re: RFR: 8308090: Add container tests for on-the-fly resource quota updates [v2]

2023-06-01 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 02:16:12 GMT, David Holmes wrote: >> Anyone willing to review this? > > @jerboaa I can't really review the tests themselves but will run through our > CI to see if they cause any problems. If not then they should be okay to add. Thanks @dholmes-ora for running them through

Re: RFR: 8308090: Add container tests for on-the-fly resource quota updates [v2]

2023-05-31 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 23 May 2023 09:04:11 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review these test changes which implement automatic testing of >> container resource updates without JVM restart. Note that this merely tests >> container detection code handling this case. It doesn't d

Re: RFR: 8308090: Add container tests for on-the-fly resource quota updates [v2]

2023-05-23 Thread Severin Gehwolf
o make them cooperate. Note that the > new test needs `podman` version `4.3.0` and better (`4.5` is current). > > Testing: > - [ ] GHA (still running) > - [x] Linux x86_64 container tests on cg v1 and cg v2 system > - [x] Newly added tests on Linux x86_64 cg v1 and cg v2 (`

RFR: 8308090: Add container tests for on-the-fly resource quota updates

2023-05-22 Thread Severin Gehwolf
Please review these test changes which implement automatic testing of container resource updates without JVM restart. Note that this merely tests container detection code handling this case. It doesn't do anything special for the JVM itself, though it might make sense to add some sanity checks

Integrated: 8300659: Refactor TestMemoryAwareness to use WhiteBox api for host values

2023-01-25 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:57:57 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Please review this refactoring of a container test. It now uses WhiteBox to > retrieve the host values it asserts for. In terms of functionality this is > basically a no-op except for the now more precise assertion o

Re: RFR: 8300659: Refactor TestMemoryAwareness to use WhiteBox api for host values [v2]

2023-01-24 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:48:13 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf 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 conta

Re: RFR: 8300659: Refactor TestMemoryAwareness to use WhiteBox api for host values [v4]

2023-01-24 Thread Severin Gehwolf
gt; > *Testing* > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 cgv1 and cgv2 > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 cgv1 and cgv2 on systems with > swapaccount=0 > - [x] GHA in progress > > Thoughts? Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with one additi

Re: RFR: 8300659: Refactor TestMemoryAwareness to use WhiteBox api for host values [v3]

2023-01-24 Thread Severin Gehwolf
gt; > *Testing* > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 cgv1 and cgv2 > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 cgv1 and cgv2 on systems with > swapaccount=0 > - [x] GHA in progress > > Thoughts? Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with one additi

Re: RFR: 8300659: Refactor TestMemoryAwareness to use WhiteBox api for host values [v2]

2023-01-20 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:24:57 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this refactoring of a container test. It now uses WhiteBox to >> retrieve the host values it asserts for. In terms of functionality this is >> basically a no-op except for the now more precise as

Re: RFR: 8300659: Refactor TestMemoryAwareness to use WhiteBox api for host values [v2]

2023-01-20 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:24:57 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this refactoring of a container test. It now uses WhiteBox to >> retrieve the host values it asserts for. In terms of functionality this is >> basically a no-op except for the now more precise as

Re: RFR: 8300659: Refactor TestMemoryAwareness to use WhiteBox api for host values [v2]

2023-01-19 Thread Severin Gehwolf
gt; > *Testing* > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 cgv1 and cgv2 > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 cgv1 and cgv2 on systems with > swapaccount=0 > - [ ] GHA in progress > > Thoughts? Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a mer

Re: RFR: 8297173: usageTicks and totalTicks should be volatile to ensure that different threads get the latest ticks [v2]

2022-11-18 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:43:39 GMT, Poison wrote: >> As the title says, add the volatile modifier. > > Poison has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit > since the last revision: > > 8297173: usageTicks and totalTicks should be volatile @tianshuang If you

Re: RFR: 8297173: usageTicks and totalTicks should be volatile to ensure that different threads get the latest ticks

2022-11-17 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:28:37 GMT, Poison wrote: > As the title says, add the volatile modifier. Please enable testing for your fork. - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11199

Re: RFR: 8297173: usageTicks and totalTicks should be volatile to ensure that different threads get the latest ticks

2022-11-17 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:28:37 GMT, Poison wrote: > As the title says, add the volatile modifier. Seems OK to me. - Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11199

Integrated: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts

2022-09-30 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 13:06:10 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Similar issue to the hotspot change discussed in > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293472. The Java metrics implementation > may get the resource limits wrong if there are additional cgroup fs mounts. > Apparently

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts [v5]

2022-09-29 Thread Severin Gehwolf
he product fix. > - [x] Some manual testing using `cgcreate` and `cgexec` on cg1 and cg2. Still > pass. > - [x] GHA all pass. > > Please review! Many thanks in advance. Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts [v3]

2022-09-29 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 05:45:14 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains one commit: >> >> 8293540: [Metrics] Potentially incorrectly detected resource li

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts [v4]

2022-09-29 Thread Severin Gehwolf
he product fix. > - [x] Some manual testing using `cgcreate` and `cgexec` on cg1 and cg2. Still > pass. > - [x] GHA all pass. > > Please review! Many thanks in advance. Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: A

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts [v3]

2022-09-26 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 08:55:41 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Similar issue to the hotspot change discussed in >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293472. The Java metrics implementation >> may get the resource limits wrong if there are additional cgroup fs mounts. >>

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts [v3]

2022-09-21 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 08:55:41 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Similar issue to the hotspot change discussed in >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293472. The Java metrics implementation >> may get the resource limits wrong if there are additional cgroup fs mounts. >>

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts [v3]

2022-09-15 Thread Severin Gehwolf
he product fix. > - [x] Some manual testing using `cgcreate` and `cgexec` on cg1 and cg2. Still > pass. > - [ ] GHA still running. > > Please review! Many thanks in advance. Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts [v2]

2022-09-15 Thread Severin Gehwolf
he product fix. > - [x] Some manual testing using `cgcreate` and `cgexec` on cg1 and cg2. Still > pass. > - [ ] GHA still running. > > Please review! Many thanks in advance. Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase

Re: RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected resource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts

2022-09-15 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 13:06:10 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Similar issue to the hotspot change discussed in > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293472. The Java metrics implementation > may get the resource limits wrong if there are additional cgroup fs mounts. > Apparently

RFR: 8293540: [Metrics] Incorrectly detected ressource limits with additional cgroup fs mounts

2022-09-14 Thread Severin Gehwolf
Similar issue to the hotspot change discussed in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293472. The Java metrics implementation may get the resource limits wrong if there are additional cgroup fs mounts. Apparently that's more common than one might think. I've reproduced this with these existing

Re: RFR: 8282684: Obsolete UseContainerCpuShares and PreferContainerQuotaForCPUCount flags

2022-08-22 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 18:41:12 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote: > Please review this fix to obsolete two container JVM flags related to using > CPU shares to compute active processor count within containers. This fix > obsoletes the flags and removes the use of CPU shares from the calculations. >

Re: RFR: 8286212: Cgroup v1 initialization causes NPE on some systems [v3]

2022-08-16 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:14:52 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this change to the cgroup v1 subsystem which makes it more >> resilient on some of the stranger systems. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to >> re-create a similar system as the reporter. The idea of

Re: RFR: 8286212: Cgroup v1 initialization causes NPE on some systems [v3]

2022-07-19 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:14:52 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this change to the cgroup v1 subsystem which makes it more >> resilient on some of the stranger systems. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to >> re-create a similar system as the reporter. The idea of

Re: RFR: 8286030: Avoid JVM crash when containers share the same /tmp dir [v6]

2022-07-15 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 22:39:36 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote: >> Some Kubernetes setups share the /tmp directory across multiple containers. >> On rare occasions, the JVM may crash when it tries to write to >> `/tmp/hsperfdata_/` when a process in a separate container >> decides to do the same thing

Re: RFR: 8286030: Avoid JVM crash when containers share the same /tmp dir [v6]

2022-07-15 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 22:39:36 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote: >> Some Kubernetes setups share the /tmp directory across multiple containers. >> On rare occasions, the JVM may crash when it tries to write to >> `/tmp/hsperfdata_/` when a process in a separate container >> decides to do the same thing

Re: RFR: 8289711: Add container configuration data to mbeans [v2]

2022-07-11 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 05:59:21 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> xpbob has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit >> since the last revision: >> >> update header > > It's not clear that introducing this as a standard API is the right thing to > do. Are you 100% confident

Re: RFR: 8289711: Add container configuration data to mbeans [v2]

2022-07-07 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 03:52:30 GMT, xpbob wrote: >> Container configuration information is useful for troubleshooting >> problems,Exposing information in MBeans is ideal for monitoring, jConsole, >> and other scenarios. >> Results the following >>

Re: RFR: 8135292: Remove duplicate code in Address.java in SA [v2]

2022-06-22 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:08:41 GMT, Jayashree Huttanagoudar wrote: >> This PR is to address : >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8135292?jql=labels%20%3D%20starter-bug >> Verified the build before and after the patch. Also below tests are run: >> Before Patch: >> >> $ make test

Re: RFR: 8135292: Remove duplicate code in Address.java in SA [v2]

2022-06-22 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:44:02 GMT, Jayashree Huttanagoudar wrote: > ``` > $ git add > $ git commit --amend --no-edit >``` The `git commit --amend` changes the current commit. Don't use `--amend` and it should be fine. - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9112

Re: RFR: 8135292: Remove duplicate code in Address.java in SA

2022-06-21 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:21:09 GMT, Jayashree Huttanagoudar wrote: > I didn't get much about what is jcheck ! When you click on the `Details` link you'll see: - OCA signatory status must be verified - Too few reviewers with at least role reviewer found (have 0, need at least 1) Think of it

Re: RFR: 8135292: Remove duplicate code in Address.java in SA

2022-06-21 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 19:19:44 GMT, Jayashree Huttanagoudar wrote: > This PR is to address : > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8135292?jql=labels%20%3D%20starter-bug > Verified the build before and after the patch. Also below tests are run: > Before Patch: > > $ make test

Re: RFR: 8286212: Cgroup v1 initialization causes NPE on some systems [v3]

2022-06-21 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:14:52 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this change to the cgroup v1 subsystem which makes it more >> resilient on some of the stranger systems. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to >> re-create a similar system as the reporter. The idea of