RFR 8078555(M): GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing

sangheon.kim sangheon.kim at oracle.com
Mon Aug 24 21:33:31 UTC 2015

Hi Kim,

On 08/24/2015 02:16 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:06 PM, sangheon.kim <sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kim,
>> Here's webrev.03 which includes your comment for MarkStackSize constraint function.
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8078555/webrev.03
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8078555/webrev.03_to_02/
>> And all your comments will be managed by https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134348 .
> If the value of MarkStackSizeMax were changed later, there's nothing
> to verify MarkStackSize is still smaller.  [This is related to my
> earlier comment about constraints between options being tested twice
> and failures reported twice.]  Do we care in this case?
If your concern is something like
-XX:MarkStackSize=128 -XX:MarkStackSizeMax=100.
Yes, in this case the order is important as ranges and constraint 
functions are verified by its order.
MarkStackSizeMax will be verified first(its range) and MarkStackSize 
will be compared with verified MarkStackSizeMax.

And as I said your original concern is current limitation.
If we set CMSOldPLABMin and CMSOldPLABMax together with invalid values 
(e.g. CMSOldPLABMin=100, CMSOldPLABMax=50),
they will print out 2 failure messages.


> Other than that, looks good.

More information about the hotspot-dev mailing list