RFR: 8062537: [TESTBUG] Conflicting GC combinations in hotspot tests

Bengt Rutisson bengt.rutisson at oracle.com
Fri Nov 14 09:16:36 UTC 2014


On 2014-11-13 14:57, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>
> On 13.11.2014 17:59, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-11-13 13:56, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13.11.2014 17:42, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2014-11-13 13:49, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13.11.2014 17:32, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Evgeniya,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-11-12 17:28, Evgeniya Stepanova wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are right - I've forgotten about copyrights
>>>>>>> Copyrights and other issues you mentioned fixed. New webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eistepan/8062537/webrev.02/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For /test/gc/arguments/TestG1HeapRegionSize.java I think it would 
>>>>>> be good to add -XX:+UseG1GC to the @run tags and then use  
>>>>>> @requires vm.gc=="G1" | vm.gc == null.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The change to test/gc/defnew/HeapChangeLogging.java is unrelated 
>>>>>> to the conflicting GC combinations. Should that really be part of 
>>>>>> this changeset?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The TestShrinkAuxiliaryDataXX tests are run in driver mode. Do we 
>>>>>> really need @requires for them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we do.
>>>>> These tests use TestShrinkAuxiliaryData class which implements its 
>>>>> own mechanism to analyze VM options an skip if not applicable 
>>>>> collector is given. @requires - allows to rely on jtreg.
>>>>>
>>>>> Driver mode is a kind of indicator, that the test will spawn its 
>>>>> own java process.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the point of @driver was that no external vmoptions were 
>>>> passed to such a test. Is that not the case?
>>>
>>> In the driver mode VM is started without external VM flags. Those 
>>> flags are passed to the tests via system property.
>>> The driver mode is a sort of shell to start something else.
>>
>> Right. So, why would you need @requires on the 
>> TestShrinkAuxiliaryDataXX tests because the utility 
>> TestShrinkAuxiliaryData picks up the vm flags through 
>> Utils.getTestJavaOpts(). What's the point in running this in a driver 
>> mode when they anyway pick up the vm flags?
>
> TestShrinkAuxiliaryData  implemented a workaround awaiting for 
> @requires to appear in jtreg.
>
> Frankly speaking, the driver mode doesn't bring a lot of value, it's 
> rather confusing and obligate developers to be more careful. If a 
> class just spawns another java process with a real test, it's a big 
> deal to run this class with or without external options. But there is 
> no guarantee, that people will not start run real tests in driver mode...

Ok. So, do we want to keep "driver" for this test or not?

>
>>
>> I'm asking because adding @requires to these tests means that we will 
>> run them less often than we do now. So, I'm a bit worried that we 
>> reduce the amount of testing we do.
>
> Don't worry about it.
> We want to run more tests, believe me.

Sure, but adding @requires means that we run the test less often. The 
TestShrinkAuxiliaryData tests were for example run every week in PIT 
testing but with the @requires tag they will only be run every 4th week 
since PIT testing is rotating which GC it runs tests with.

Bengt

>
> -- Dima
>
>
>>
>> Bengt
>>
>>>
>>> -- Dima
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bengt
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Dima
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise it look ok to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bengt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Evgeniya Stepanova
>>>>>>> On 12.11.2014 18:23, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Evgeniya,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fix looks good to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I noticed the following minor things:
>>>>>>>> - copyrights need to include the year of last change
>>>>>>>> - test/gc/defnew/HeapChangeLogging.java - is listed among 
>>>>>>>> updated files, but doesn't contain any changes
>>>>>>>> - test/gc/g1/TestShrinkAuxiliaryData.java - contain unsed 
>>>>>>>> variable 'prohibitedVmOptions'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Dima
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12.11.2014 18:49, Evgeniya Stepanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the decision was made to change only tests that fail 
>>>>>>>>> because of conflict for now (skip "selfish" tests), I post new 
>>>>>>>>> webrev for hotspot part of the JDK-8019361 
>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8019361>:
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/eistepan/8062537/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Evgeniya Stepanova
>>>>>>>>> On 04.11.2014 15:32, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Nice plan! Please feel free to send me any feedback/questions 
>>>>>>>>>> regarding @requires
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Dima
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04.11.2014 11:40, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dima,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the answers. I think the currently proposed patch 
>>>>>>>>>>> is a good start. We will have to evolve the @requires tag in 
>>>>>>>>>>> the future, but let's have that discussion separate from 
>>>>>>>>>>> this review. And we can start that discussion later when we 
>>>>>>>>>>> have more experience with the current version of @requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing this!
>>>>>>>>>>> Bengt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/14 10:12 PM, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bengt,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's great that we have very closed visions!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The general comment: currently, jtreg doesn't support any 
>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of plugins, so you can't provide a VM specific handler 
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the @requires or another tag. This is very annoying 
>>>>>>>>>>>> limitation and we have to live with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A few more comments inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03.11.2014 16:31, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dima,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answers inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/31/14 1:56 PM, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bengt,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your detailed feedback, we appreciate it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very much!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See comments inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31.10.2014 1:09, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Evgeniya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/14 3:05 PM, Evgeniya Stepanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review changes for 8062537, the OpenJDK/hotspot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the JDK-8019361 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8019361>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062537
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eistepan/8062537/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem: Some tests explicitly set GC and fail when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jtreg set another GC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Solution: Such tests marked with the jtreg tag 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "requires" to skip test if there is a conflict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for fixing this! It is really great that we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally start sorting this out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First a general comment. The @requires tag has been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed without much cooperation with the GC team. We 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did have a lot of feedback when it was first presented a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year ago, but it does not seem like this feedback was 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorporated into the @requires that was eventually built.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We tried to implement as much developer's wishes as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. But not everything is possible, sorry for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure you have done your best. It's just that we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been requesting this feature for 3 years and I was 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expecting us to be able to influence the feature much more 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than was the case now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My personal hope: @requires will address ~90% of existing 
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this change that gets proposed now is a big step 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward and I won't object to it. But I am pretty 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced that we will soon run in to the limitations of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current @requires implementation and we will have to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redo this work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the points I don't really like about the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @requires tag are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - the "vm.gc" abstraction is more limiting than helping. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would have been better to just "require" any command 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line flag.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "vm.gc" is an alias to a very popular flag. It's also 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to use:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vm.opt.UseG1GC == true instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The table with all vars available in jtreg:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jtreg/4.1/promoted/latest/binaries/jtreg/doc/jtreg/tag-spec.html#requires_names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with having this matching built in to JTreg is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it makes it very hard to change. When we discussed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this a year ago I think we said that JTreg should only 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a means to test against the command line and a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hook for running some java code in the @requires tag. That 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way we could put logic like this in a test library that is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> under our control. This would make it easy for us to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change and also enables us to use different logic for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be glad to have own harness...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - the requirement should be per @run tag. Right now we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do what you did in this change and use 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vm.gc=null even when some tests could actually have been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run when a GC was specified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be great, but it will unlikely happen in jtreg, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well as test case support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you mean with test case support? Hi Evgeniya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Under test case support I mean ability to treat each @run 
>>>>>>>>>>>> as a separate test. Now
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> @test
>>>>>>>>>>>> @run -XX:g1RegSize=1m MyTest
>>>>>>>>>>>> @run -XX:g1RegSize=2m MyTest
>>>>>>>>>>>> @run -XX:g1RegSize=4m MyTest
>>>>>>>>>>>> class MyTest {
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is always a single test. You can't exclude, or re-run a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - there are many tests that require more than just a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific GC. Often there are other flags that can't be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed either for the test to work properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes. conflicting GC is just the most popular problem 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by conflicting options.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we address this issue and we are satisfied with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution, we could move further.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree that taking one step at the time is good. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I would have preferred that the first step was 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "just run the command line as specified in the @run tag" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe this is not the right place to discuss the current 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the @requires tag. I just want to say 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I'm not too happy about how the @requires tag 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned out. But assuming we have to use it the way it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now I guess the proposed changeset looks good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, this thread is about change made by Evgeniya, not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about jtreg :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thanks for reviewing it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. And as I said, I think the patch looks ok. I have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not looked at all tests. But if they now pass with the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations that we test with I guess they should be ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent! Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested locally with different GC flags (-XX:+UseG1GC, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -XX:+UseParallelGC, -XX:+UseSerialGC, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -XX:+UseConcMarkSweep and without any GC flag). Tests 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are being excluded as expected. No tests failed because 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the conflict.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you tested with -Xconcgc too? It's an alias for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '-Xconcgc' is not supported yet. (bug in jtreg, I will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submit)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think some of the test, like 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/gc/startup_warnings/TestDefNewCMS.java, will fail 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you run with -XX:+UseParNewGC. Others, like 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/gc/startup_warnings/TestParNewCMS.java, will fail 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you run with -XX:-UseParNewGC. Could you test these 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two cases too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These two tests ignore vm flags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add @requires here is not necessary, but it will allow 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not execute the tests when not needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if we run HS tests with 4 GC, we don't need to run 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these tests 4 times, 1 should be enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we really want to use the @requires functionality for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this purpose? It seems like a way of misusing @requires. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we just want the tests to be run once I think Leonid's 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach with tests lists seems more suitable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not a purpose of course, it's just side effect :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But are you sure that this is the reason for the @requires 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this case? TestDefNewCMS does sound like a test that is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefNew specific. I don't see a reason to run it with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ParNew. If it doesn't fail today it should probably be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed so that it does fail if it is run with the wrong GC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> @requires - is not the silver bullet, but it's quite easy 
>>>>>>>>>>>> way to solve a lot of issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope, @requires will allow to reduce the number of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> "selfish" tests, which produce a new java process to ignore 
>>>>>>>>>>>> vm flags coming from outside. No @requires, no other 
>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism could 100% protect a test from running with 
>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicting options, but this is not the goal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If one runs tests with an exotic option, like a new G2 
>>>>>>>>>>>> collector, there shouldn't mass failures caused by options 
>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts. But a few failures could be handled manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly it looks to me like there are tests that will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail if you run them with -XX:-UseParallelOldGC or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -XX:+UseParallelOldGC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a heads up. These two tests will soon be removed. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm about to push a changeset that removes them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/gc/startup_warnings/TestCMSIncrementalMode.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/gc/startup_warnings/TestCMSNoIncrementalMode.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> okay, thank for letting us know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there some way of making sure that all tests are run 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at one time or another. With this change there is a risk 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that some tests are never run and always skipped. Will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we somehow be tracking what gets skipped and make sure 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all tests are at least run once with the correct GC 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that it is not skipped all the time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a very good question!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jtreg now doesn't report skipped tests, hopefully it will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do soon, after getting fix of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/CODETOOLS-7900934
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, tracking tests which are not run is important 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @requires - is not the only to exclude test from execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other examples:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   *@ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   *@test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*@bug 4445555
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   *@test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such tests will never be run, because jtreg treats as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test only files with @test on the first place...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So,  making sure that tests do not disappear is important 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQE task, we know about that, we're thinking on solution 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (may be very actively).  But this subject for another 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, not within RFR :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Glad to hear that you are actively working on this!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was going to say "not very actively", but never mind, we 
>>>>>>>>>>>> know about this problem. With introducing @requires 
>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism it will become more important!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Dima
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bengt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dima
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bengt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evgeniya Stepanova
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> /Evgeniya Stepanova/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> /Evgeniya Stepanova/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20141114/17b6c011/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list