On 3/11/14 12:05 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
On 11 mar 2014, at 16:48, Siebenborn, Axel <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
The test files have already descriptive names.
So, it would be enough to remove the bug number from the path.
Sorry, I had to catch it too in the first place.
Thanks,
Serguei
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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/><http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Easiebenborn/8036666/webrev/>
Thanks,
Axel
