On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 22:50:50 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dear All, >> I took the liberity to create a PR (#2519) for the "noparallel" option. >> Maybe we could discuss there. And I also found @Hamlin-Li has created a CSR >> for that. Thanks a lot! >> >> BRs, >> Lin > > There is still one minor issue with this `noparallel` support, and that is we > still run into the problem of `jmap -dump` not being able to pass a 4th > argument via the attach API. We could just say that's fine, and require using > the `jcmd` to do the heap dump if the user wants to override the default of > having parallel enabled, but then it seems we should do the same for `jmap > -histo` to be consistent. So in other words, no support in `jmap` for > disabling parallel support, but we do have the support in `jcmd`. Thoughts? Hi Chris, > There is still one minor issue with this `noparallel` support, and that is we > still run into the problem of `jmap -dump` not being able to pass a 4th > argument via the attach API. We could just say that's fine, and require using > the `jcmd` to do the heap dump if the user wants to override the default of > having parallel enabled, but then it seems we should do the same for `jmap > -histo` to be consistent. So in other words, no support in `jmap` for > disabling parallel support, but we do have the support in `jcmd`. Thoughts? I just updated the #2261 which introduce a new command "dumpheapext" that could handle more arguments (as you suggested the idea :-> ). I think maybe that kind of change is acceptable. Moreover, this way also allow us to add more options in future. So maybe we have two choice here: - Add a new command for argument extension. so jcmd and jmap could be consisitent. - Remove the "parallel" option in jmap, and leave the control to jcmd. I prefer the first one as it may be more clearer for users to have consisitent usage of jcmd and jmap tools as they were before. Thanks! Lin ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2379
