RFR: 5049299 - (process) Use,posix_spawn, not fork, on S10 to avoid swap,exhaustion (jdk7u-dev)

[Rob McKenna]

Ah, thanks for catching that David, I've updated the webrev in place.

I believe the reasoning is that we want to minimise any potential impact 
to customers running in production. The general feeling seems to be that 
Mac is a development platform and is less likely to cause us problems in 
that regard. (not that I would anticipate any on Solaris, but I 
understand the desire to be conservative)

     -Rob

On 07/11/13 01:51, David Holmes wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 10:00 PM, Rob McKenna wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> The only difference in 5049299 is the change in the default property
>> value in Solaris. Apologies for not making that clear.
>
> Given this was primarily aimed at Solaris in the first place it seems 
> strange to me to not make the change on Solaris. If this is considered 
> risky fr an update release then I would think that applies to all 
> platforms equally. ??
>
> If Solaris is not in fact changing then the comment in 
> src/solaris/native/java/lang/UNIXProcess_md.c needs to be altered:
>
>    * Based on the above analysis, we are currently using vfork() on
> !  * Linux and spawn() on other Unix systems, but the code to use clone()
> !  * and fork() remains.
>
> David
> -----
>
>>      -Rob
>>
>> On 06/11/13 01:09, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> How different is this to the JDK 8 version?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 6/11/2013 7:24 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>> ..
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/5049299/7/webrev.01/
>>>>
>>>>      -Rob
>>>>
>>>> On 05/11/13 21:23, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to backport this change to JDK7. Note: this fix uses
>>>>> posix_spawn by default on Mac OSX only. On Solaris fork will remain
>>>>> the default behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just noticed that there is a problem with the testcase on 
>>>>> Solaris
>>>>> in that it will test fork twice. (and won't test posix_spawn) I'll
>>>>> figure out a way around this, but in the mean time I'd like to get 
>>>>> the
>>>>> ball rolling on this review anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>     -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>