RFR[9u-dev]: 8054326: Confusing message in "Current rem set statistics"

Mattis Castegren mattis.castegren at oracle.com
Mon Apr 18 11:27:39 UTC 2016


Ok, so the benefit of more granularity and less unclear messages for low numbers stand against the ease to parse the logs.

I think option 3 seems reasonable, to change both this and similar places. Per, in that case, do you think we should change the proper_unit_for_byte_size/byte_size_in_proper_unit functions to print bytes under 10k in the same bug?

How big do you all think the parsing issue will be, though? Is that so big it's a stopper, or can Cheleswer go ahead and change a few of these places.

Kind Regards
/Mattis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Per Liden 
Sent: den 13 april 2016 10:56
To: Mattis Castegren; Cheleswer Sahu; Mikael Gerdin; hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR[9u-dev]: 8054326: Confusing message in "Current rem set statistics"

Hi,

On 2016-04-13 09:57, Mattis Castegren wrote:
> Hi
>
> This request came in some time ago as a low priority request from PSR (the Oracle performance team):
>
> https://bug.oraclecorp.com/pls/bug/webbug_edit.edit_info_top?rptno=193
> 56019
> PSR:FUNC: Confusing msg in "Current rem set statistics"
>
> Their main complaint is that 0 usually means exactly 0. So, I think the balance is between 0 being confusing when the value is non-zero vs the ease of parsing the logs. I see three ways to do this:
>
> 1) Close the bug as Won't Fix
> 2) Change this specific issue, print bytes if the value is lower than 
> 1k
> 3) Change this and a few other places.
>
> We in Sustaining don't have too strong of an opinion here. Stanley Guan from PSR recently commented the BugDB bug making the case for changing the output, but if the GC team is of the opinion that we should close this as Won't Fix with the motivation that parsing becomes harder with this change, then we can close the bug.
>
> Anyone else who has an opinion or a motivation for any of the options above?

I would prefer 1 or 3, where 3 is be using the existing proper_unit_for_byte_size/byte_size_in_proper_unit functions, unless there's a good reason not to. I can't see any problems with printing B for sizes under 10K rather than 1K, it's actually a feature.

cheers,
Per

>
> Kind Regards
> /Mattis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheleswer Sahu
> Sent: den 11 april 2016 15:33
> To: Liden; Mikael Gerdin; hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Cc: Mattis Castegren
> Subject: RE: RFR[9u-dev]: 8054326: Confusing message in "Current rem set statistics"
>
> Hi,
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Per Liden
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 1:57 PM
> To: Mikael Gerdin; Cheleswer Sahu; hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR[9u-dev]: 8054326: Confusing message in "Current rem set statistics"
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-04-06 13:09, Mikael Gerdin wrote:
> [...]
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> Please review the code changes for
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054326.
>>>
>>>
>>> Webrev Link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~csahu/8054326/
>>>
>
> We try to avoid printing sizes with dynamically selected binary 
> prefixes
> (K/M/G) for the simple reason that it makes it harder to grep through and compare GC logs. If that "rule" applies here can be discussed.
>
> We already have the functions
> proper_unit_for_byte_size/byte_size_in_proper_unit to do roughly what you've done, but they are very rarely used for the reason stated above.
>
> Mikael had directed me towards this function when we had offline chat regarding this, but this function prints in KB only if size is  greater than 10k. Therefore I had written my own code to print this.
>
> There are a other places in this code/function where we're also printing potentially small values as K, which you haven't addressed here. Just addressing one of the places seems like an incomplete fix.
>
> Yes, I agree there are other places too which can be considered. I just took the "Max" part because I was not sure about others.
>
> I'm personally not sure if this is a problem big enough to worth addressing at all. Maybe others have a different opinion, Thomas/Bengt/Mikeal/Stefan?
>
> Does any have any other opinion regarding this ? We in sustaining team although feel that showing "Max" as 0k is ambiguous.
>
>
> Regards,
> Cheleswer
> cheers,
> Per
>
>>>
>>> Bug Brief: In output of remset statistics "Max"  is printing as 0k, 
>>> which is confusing for user.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem Identified : "Max" value is rounded to KB, which result  in 
>>> 0k, if the value is less than 1024B.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Solution Proposed:  If the value for "Max" is less than 1 KB (1024 
>>> B),  print the value in bytes (i.e. 1023B.) else
>>>
>>> print the value in KB.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Cheleswer
>>>
>>>
>>>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list