RFR 8078555(M): GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
sangheon.kim at oracle.com
Wed Aug 26 18:51:06 UTC 2015
Thank you for looking at this!
On 08/26/2015 10:59 AM, Derek White wrote:
> Hi Sangheon,
> I haven't reviewed the actual ranges and constraints yet, but one
> thing you might want to consider:
> For the test cases, you may want synchronize the GC specified to
> ProcessBuilder with the "@requires gc=" tags. This prevents the test
> harness from running G1 tests when the test harness is trying to run
> CMS test, etc, and also avoids potential confusing test failures.
> @requires vm.gc=="G1" | vm.gc=="null"
> (or specify Parallel GC as needed).
Thank you for the explanation.
I didn't know about this.
So it seems like vm.gc=="null" means not specifying vm option.
> This is for:
> TestG1ConcMarkStepDurationMillis.java (G1)
> TestObjectTenuringFlags.java (Parallel)
> TestInitialTenuringThreshold.java (Parallel)
> TestG1HeapRegionSize.java (G1)
Okay, I will add these tags at next webrev.
> - Derek
> On 8/24/15 5:33 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
>> 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>
>>>> Hi Kim,
>>>> Here's webrev.03 which includes your comment for MarkStackSize
>>>> constraint function.
>>>> 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