JVMTI OOM handling when arrays / objects are too large
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems
David.Holmes at Sun.COM
Tue Jun 23 16:47:28 PDT 2009
As I see it there was no consensus reached on whether this change should
be made. I have some reservations as previously outlined, but Alan
seemed to be of the view that the current situation was deliberately
chosen - which implied to me (Alan correct me if I'm wrong) that he
opposed the change.
It may be that including this case in the OOM onError handling is okay,
but that the JVMTI event posting is not. But Alan will need to clarify
his position on that.
Jeremy Manson said the following on 06/24/09 07:32:
> So, it should have the JVMTI_RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED_OOM_ERROR but not the
> JVMTI_RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED_JAVA_HEAP? I can change that.
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Alan Bateman<Alan.Bateman at sun.com> wrote:
>> Jeremy Manson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Alan Bateman<Alan.Bateman at sun.com> wrote:
>>>> Hopefully this helps. I can review the patch but as I'm not working in
>>>> area on a daily basis, so it would be best to have a reviewer from the
>>>> hotspot team (and I assume you'll need someone to push this through
>>> So, does anyone want to step up and review it? I know several of you
>>> have already looked at it.
>> Is there is an updated webrev? In my last year I had hoped we wouldn't send
>> the JVM TI ResourceExhausted event because this isn't really a resource
>> exhaustion case.
More information about the serviceability-dev