On 7/09/2012 6:21 PM, Dmytro Sheyko wrote:
David,Maybe it makes sense to do some little corrections in format specifiers: st->print("#" INT64_FORMAT " ", java_lang_Thread::thread_id(thread_oop)); if (java_lang_Thread::is_daemon(thread_oop)) st->print("daemon "); st->print("prio=" INT32_FORMAT " ", java_lang_Thread::priority(thread_oop)); instead of st->print("#%ld ", java_lang_Thread::thread_id(thread_oop)); if (java_lang_Thread::is_daemon(thread_oop)) st->print("daemon "); st->print("prio=%d ", java_lang_Thread::priority(thread_oop));
I confused myself over the correctness of %ld versus your original %llx - sorry. The %d is fine and is used elsewhere when printing the priority.
Webrev updated at same location. Thanks, David
Thanks, Dmytro > Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:54:32 +1000 > From: david.hol...@oracle.com > To: hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net > CC: dmytro_she...@hotmail.com; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: RFR: 7194254 jstack reports wrong thread priorities > > This is a formal request for review for the patch contributed by Dymtro > Sheyko as discussed previously here: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2012-August/006376.html > > I am one reviewer of course. > > The webrev is here: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7194254/webrev.v1/ > > The fix has two components: > > 1. It fixes a bug in os::get_priority that assumed a more positive > integer was always higher priority than a less positive one. > > 2. It addresses the problem that os::get_priority is often inexact when > desiring the Java thread priority (because the mapping from Java > priority to OS priority is often M:1) by not using it in > Threads::print_on. Instead Threads::print_on will always report the > native OS priority, and JavaThread::print_on() will print the > java.lang.Thread.getId() value together with the > java.lang.Thread.getPriority() value. > > This change in output affects all stackdumps including crash logs and > thread dumps (including those shown by jstack). > > There is also a test program to check jstack output. I'll be doing some > additional validation while the RFR is in progress. > > Thanks, > David
