Hi Axel,
Thank you for the changes!
It looks good, but one more place need a fix (expected must be 4 now):
230 if (recursionCount != 4) {
231 throw new AssertionError("recursions: expected 3, but was " +
recursionCount);
232 }
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/12/14 8:21 AM, Siebenborn, Axel wrote:
Hi Serguei,
I created a new webrev:
http://www.sapjvm.com/as/webrevs/8036666_1/
I incorporated your suggestions and moved the test files.
Thanks,
Axel
On 11.03.2014 20:25, [email protected] wrote:
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
