On 11 mar 2014, at 16:48, Siebenborn, Axel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Seguei,
> I still can't upload files to the cr.openjdk server.
> Meanwhile, I use our server for the new webrev:
> 
> http://www.sapjvm.com/as/webrevs/8036666/
> 
> Thanks,
> Axel
> 
> Comments inline:
> 
> On 11.03.2014 09:50, [email protected] wrote:
>> Hi Axel,
>> 
>> The webrev link is resolvable now.
>> Thank you for taking care about your broken account on the cr.openjdk server!
>> 
>> I have some comments on the test case ...
>> 
>> - This is nice test, thank you for providing it!
>> 
>> - The location of the test must be different as it is a JVMTI test:
>>      test/serviceability/jvmti/8036666  instead of test/runtime/8036666 
> 
> I moved the test.

Tests should avoid the bug number in the name or path and instead use a 
descriptive name. See this page for some background: 
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Naming+HotSpot+JTReg+Tests

Thanks,
/Staffan

> 
>> 
>> RecursiveObjectLock,java:
>> 
>>  - A suggestion to add a synchronized method (say, nestedLock3) into the 
>> chain
>>     of calls started from the testMethod. In order to do so, the class 
>> RecursiveObjectLock
>>     needs to extend the ALock class. And the this object needs to be used in 
>> the
>>     synchronized statements and for wait()?
>>     What do you think about such test enhancement for better coverage?
> 
> In order to have a synchronized method in the call chain, I synchronize on 
> the "this" object.
> 
>> GetObjectLockCount.java:
>> 
>>  - The comment line 283 seems to be obsolete as the "param out" is not 
>> present anymore:
>> 
>> 283      * @param out   Stream to copy to
>> 
>> 
>>  - Could you, please, add e.printStackTrace() into the catch statements at 
>> the lines 232 and 300?
>> 
>>  - A question:
>>       It seems the errThread and outThread are started a little bit late.
>>       Would it be better to start them earlier, or it was intentional?
> 
> You're right! I moved to code up.
> 
>> 
>> Some minor style-related comments (I hope, it is easy to fix this before 
>> push):
>>    - Unneeded extra empty lines:           149, 174-175, 244
>>    - A space is missed before the '{':       180, 242, 243, 246
>>    - Unneeded extra space after and before the "(":   235, 297
>>    - The curly brackets '{' do not follow the common style:  142, 144
>> 
> 
> I hope I fixed them all and added no new style violations. 
> Do you have a tool to check this?
> 
>> 
>> We still need another reviewer for this fix.
>> I'm ready to be a sponsor for it.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Serguei
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/10/14 12:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Hi Axel,
>>> 
>>> The webrev link does not work now.
>>> I'll check it again tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Serguei
>>> 
>>> On 3/7/14 1:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Hi Axel,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for fixing this issue.
>>>> I'm reviewing it.
>>>> It looks good in general, but a little bit more time is needed to look at 
>>>> the tests.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you need a sponsor for pushing?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Serguei
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/6/14 12:08 AM, Siebenborn, Axel wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> could I have a review for the following change?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The recursive lock count for an object is not correct, in cases, where a 
>>>>> monitor is inflated after recursive lightweight locks. In this case, the 
>>>>> recursion count is taken from the heavyweight monitor, represented by the 
>>>>> class ObjectMonitor. ObjectMonitor::_recursions is the number of times 
>>>>> ObjectMonitor::enter() was called to acquire the lock minus 1. This 
>>>>> counter does not include the recursions of lightweight locks, that happen 
>>>>> before inflating the monitor and is not equal to the recursion count from 
>>>>> a Java source level point of view.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I added a test to the webrev to reproduce the problem.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The suggested fix is to call count_locked_objects, even if there's a 
>>>>> heavyweight monitor and get the recursion count by iterating the vframes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bug:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036666
>>>>> 
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asiebenborn/8036666/webrev/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Easiebenborn/8036666/webrev/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Axel

Reply via email to