RFR: 8009723 CMS logs "concurrent mode failure" twice when using (disabling) -XX:-UseCMSCompactAtFullCollection
bengt.rutisson at oracle.com
Mon Mar 11 04:40:16 PDT 2013
I'm fine with pushing this without the test, but I kind of think it is
better to include the test. If we have a taken the time to write a test
I think it is a good idea to include it. We really need the test
framework to allow us to specify how the tests can be run to not waste
resources. So, I think 3) below is something we are always running in to
and need fixed. Thus, I don't think that should stop us from adding tests.
If you decide to include the test I would like to review it more
closely. One thing is that I think it might be simpler to write the test
using the testlibrary rather than implementing your own process support.
On 3/9/13 12:39 AM, Kevin Walls wrote:
> This is a review request for a small change:
> Using CMS and disabling UseCMSCompactAtFullCollection on the command
> line easily produces a double-logging of the "(concurrent mode
> failure)" message. This was spotted by Erik Helin.
> This is like removing a print statement.
> The webrev contains a testcase, but I am currently suggesting I commit
> this without the test as:
> 1) it's fairly trivial: remove a print statement, you don't the see
> output of that print statement.
> 2) it requires -XX:-UseCMSCompactAtFullCollection which I don't
> believe is commonly used
> 3) it is a CMS-specific and the current test framework is quite
> awkward to make the test specific (manual work in the java test, or
> re-exec. If re-execing do we ignore TESTVMOPTS or parse it and add
> UseConcMarkSweepGC?... a few issues there we should solve but this may
> not be the test change that needs that...)
> So the test is possible, and useful for verifying it if anybody wants
> to run it right now, but does not seem a necessity and for this small
> change adding to the test harness library to make it more elegant
> seems unnecessary for this minor problem...
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev