RFR(s): 8145000: TestOptionsWithRanges.java failure for XX:+UseNUMA -XX:+UseNUMAInterleaving -XX:NUMAInterleaveGranularity=65536
tom.benson at oracle.com
Fri Dec 18 23:39:46 UTC 2015
On 12/18/2015 6:02 PM, sangheon wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> On 12/17/2015 04:23 PM, sangheon wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> Thank you for reviewing this!
>> On 12/17/2015 01:28 PM, Tom Benson wrote:
>>> Hi Sangheon,
>>> I like the new approach, but just have a couple of comments.
>>> I think you should check the VirtualQuery return status and return
>>> false from protect_pages_individually if zero.
>> I will fix this.
>>> I don't *think* you need to have the "!UseLargePages" restriction
>>> anymore with this approach, do you?
>> protect_pages_individually() doesn't have previous restriction on its
>> However I wanted to remain the caller(os::protect_memory) as is
>> because, as you already mentioned below, I didn't want to have an
>> additional call of VirtualQuery() for simpler code.
>> I don't have strong opinion on this.
>> Let me post next webrev after concluding this.
> Tom, do you prefer to always use protect_pages_individually()?
> Does anyone have opinion on this?
I'd vote for leaving the UseNUMAInterleaving test in.
>>> Actually, I think you could just always use
>>> protect_pages_individually regardless of whether UseNUMAInterleaving
>>> was enabled or not, and the right thing would happen. But this way,
>>> you save an unnecessary system call plus some overhead.
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev