On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 20:20:19 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi @plummercj @sspitsyn @linzang >> Thanks for discussion. I understood that currently the final decision is to >> still use "parallel=<N>" and do not introduce new option "noparallel". >> Based on this decision, for jcmd GC.class_historgram, would you mind to >> double confirm whether currently implementation is fine? I think we only >> need to refine the words in help doc or CSR, am I right? please kindly >> correct me if I misunderstand it. :-) >> If I'm understanding correctly, would you mind to suggest how should we >> describe <N>? IMHO, I don't think it's a good idea to expose to much details >> about the implementation, and it's hard to make its meaning precise. >> Following is my version: >> >> "Degree of parallelism for heap iteration. " >> "0 means let the VM determine the parallelism. " >> "1 means use one thread, i.e. disable parallelism. " >> "n means ask the VM try best to use n threads, but it's not guaranteed and >> dependant on the specific implementation and runtime environment. n must be >> positive." >> >> How do you think about it? > >>"Degree of parallelism for heap iteration. " > > How about "Number of parallel threads to use for heap inspection". I've > noticed the term "heap iteration" in a few places, but I think "heap > inspection" would be better. That would be inline with terminology used in > the source: > > 130 VM_GC_HeapInspection(outputStream* out, bool request_full_gc, > 131 uint parallel_thread_num = 1) : > > For the rest of the help: > > "0: let the VM determine the number of threads to use. " > "1: use one thread, i.e. disable parallelism. " > "<n>: Request that <n> threads be used. <n> must be positive. The VM will try > to use <n> threads, but might use fewer threads than <n>." BTW, we have three PRs related to `parallel=<n>`. I think it would be best to hold off pushing any of them until they have all been reviewed and approved. One reason is because the `parallel=<n>` output should be consistent for all of them, and if there is a minor suggestion for a change in one, it should be applied to all 3. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2379
