On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 16:05:00 GMT, Stefan Karlsson <stef...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > > > I think release/uncommit failures should be handled by the callers. > > Currently, uncommit failure is handled in most places by the caller, > > release failure seems mostly not. Since, at least for uncommit, we could > > sometimes fail for valid reasons, I think we shouldn't fail fatally in the > > os:: functions. > > I would like to drill a bit deeper into this. Do you have any concrete > examples of an uncommit failure that should not be handled as a fatal error? I second @stefank here. Uncommit can fail, ironically, with an ENOMEM : if the uncommit punches a hole into a committed region, this would cause a new new VMA on the kernel-side. This may fail if we run against the limit for VMAs. Forgot what it was, some sysconf setting. All of this is Linux specific, though. I don't think this should be unconditionally a fatal error. Since the allocator (whatever it is) can decide to re-commit the region later, and thus "self-heal" itself. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24084#issuecomment-2754997791
