RFR (S): 8023158 - hotspot/test/gc/7168848/HumongousAlloc.java fails 14 full gcs, expect 0 full gcs

Tao Mao tao.mao at oracle.com
Wed Sep 25 10:07:30 PDT 2013


Hi Per,

Did you run 'hg rename foo bar' to actually rename the test file? I 
didn't see this info in .patch file.

Thanks.
Tao

On 9/24/13 6:33 AM, Per Liden wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thanks for reviewing. Updated webrev here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pliden/8023158/webrev.02/
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On 2013-09-24 14:49, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 18:13 +0200, Per Liden wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pliden/8023158/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8023158
>>>
>>> Summary: A side effect of fixing JDK-8020155 was that the 
>>> HumongousAlloc
>>> test for G1 broke. This test is designed to make sure than an 
>>> allocation
>>> of an humongous object initiates a mark phase if that allocation pushes
>>> the heap size above InitiatingHeapOccupancyPercent. Due to the changes
>>> made in JDK-8020155 this test fails since it instead provokes Full GCs.
>>> This patch fixes the test. Also renamed the test according to the new
>>> naming schema.
>> - the name of the class does not correspond to the java file name, so it
>> does not compile (probably a last-minute change).
>
> Moved the file last minute... doh!
>
>> - one suggestion for the test: please assign the dummy LOB to a global
>> static instead of a local variable. The compiler can remove that
>> allocation easily, say when run with -Xcomp and the server compiler. I
>> tried adding "-Xcomp" and "-server" to the invocation of the
>> ProcessBuilder and it did not fail though. It may not hurt to do that
>> anyway.
> Yep, will do.
>
>>
>> One personal style comment: not sure if you need to prefix all variables
>> in the test with "g1", but that's just my opinion. I am fine either way.
> I'll drop those.
>
> cheers,
> /Per
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list