On Wed, 5 May 2021 21:16:07 GMT, Argha C <github.com+971473+argh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Hi Argha, thanks a lot for your suggestion. I think both "quota" and "share" >> are worth considering. Let us look into the implementation of >> `CgroupSubsystem::active_processor_count()` in OpenJDK HotSpot >> (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/hotspot/os/linux/cgroupSubsystem_linux.cpp). > > Thanks for linking that. It sounds reasonable to me to prefer `quota` in that > case. > @argha-c The proposed fix is within the `quota > 0` condition. I.e. this is > code only run when CPU quotas, _not_ shares are in effect. In docker/podman > speach these are `--cpu-quota=...` and `--cpu-period=....` switches. So no, > in this case it wouldn't make sense to use cpu shares info in a branch which > looks at cpu quotas ;-) @jerboaa : Correct. My comment was less specific to the branch, and more to highlight that a fix here needs to consider the case for both `quota` and `shares`. I see the bug report has been updated to reflect that. Cheers. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3656
