RFR: JDK-8152690: main thread does not have native thread name
David Holmes
david.holmes at oracle.com
Tue Apr 26 13:08:27 UTC 2016
On 26/04/2016 10:54 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> For this issue, I think we can approach as following:
>
>
> 1. Export new JVM function to set native thread name
> It can avoid JNI call and can handle char* value.
> However this plan has been rejected.
>
> 2. Call uncaught exception handler from Launcher
> We have to clear (process) any pending exception before
> DetachCurrentThread() call. (not documented?)
> ------
>> so note that we are potentially calling DetachCurrentThread with an
>> exception pending - which is prohibited by JNI**
>
>> **JNI spec needs to be modified here.
> ------
> So we can process pending exception through uncaught
> exception handler.
> However, this plan has been rejected.
>
> 3. Do not set DestroyJavaVM name when exception is occurred
> It disrupts consistency for native thread name.
>
> 4. Attach to JVM to set native thread name for DestroyJavaVM
> It does not look good.
>
>
> If all of them are not accepted, I guess that it is difficult.
> Do you have any other idea?
Sorry I don't. The basic idea of having the launcher set the native
thread name is fine, but the mechanism to do that has been problematic.
The "real" solution (ie one that other applications hosting the jvm
would need to use) is for the launcher to duplicate the per-platform
logic for os::set_native_thread_name - but that was undesirable. Instead
we have tried to avoid that by finding a way to use whatever is already
in the JVM - but adding a new JVM interface to expose it directly is not
ideal; and hooking into the java.lang.Thread code to avoid that has run
into these other problems. I really don't want to take the logic for
uncaught exception handling that is in Thread::exit and duplicate it in
the launcher.
The effort and disruption here really does not justify the "it would be
nice to set the native thread name for the main thread" objective.
I never expected this to be as problematic as it has turned out.
Sorry.
David
-----
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> On 2016/04/26 18:35, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 26/04/2016 7:22 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>>> I thought about being able to save/restore the original pending
>>>> exception but could not see a simple way to restore it - ie just by
>>>> poking it back into the thread's pending exception field. The problem
>>>> with using env->Throw is that it acts like the initial throwing of the
>>>> exception and will have a number of side-effects that then get doubled
>>>> up:
>>>> - logging statements (UL and Event logging)
>>>> - OOM counting
>>>
>>> Thanks, I understood.
>>>
>>>>>> so note that we are potentially calling DetachCurrentThread with an
>>>>>> exception pending - which is prohibited by JNI**, but which we
>>>>>> actually rely on for desired operation as DetachCurrentThread calls
>>>>>> thread->exit() which performs uncaught exception handling (ie it
>>>>>> prints the exception message and stacktrace) and then clears the
>>>>>> exception! (Hence DestroyJavaVM is not called with any pending
>>>>>> exceptions.)
>>>
>>> I think we can call uncaught exception handler before calling
>>> DestroyJavaVM().
>>> I added it in new webrev for jdk:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.08/hotspot/
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.08/jdk/
>>>
>>> DispatchUncaughtException() in java.c emulates uncaught exception
>>> handler
>>> call in JavaThread::exit().
>>> I think this patch can provide the solution for our issue.
>>>
>>> Could you check it?
>>
>> Sorry - this is getting far too disruptive. I do not support changing
>> the way the main thread behaves upon completion, just because we want
>> to set a native thread name.
>>
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Yasumasa
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016/04/26 14:16, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2016 1:11 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>> Hi David, Kumar,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that we should evacuate original exception before
>>>>> DestroyJavaVM
>>>>> thread name is set.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.07/hotspot/
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.07/jdk/
>>>>>
>>>>> I added it to LEAVE macro in new webrev.
>>>>
>>>> BTW: in the LEAVE macro, stylistically all the code should be in the
>>>> do { } while(false); loop. I overlooked that initially.
>>>>
>>>>> I tested it with following code. It works fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> public void main(String[] args){
>>>>> throw new RuntimeException("test");
>>>>> }
>>>>> -------------
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think about it?
>>>>
>>>> I thought about being able to save/restore the original pending
>>>> exception but could not see a simple way to restore it - ie just by
>>>> poking it back into the thread's pending exception field. The problem
>>>> with using env->Throw is that it acts like the initial throwing of the
>>>> exception and will have a number of side-effects that then get doubled
>>>> up:
>>>> - logging statements (UL and Event logging)
>>>> - OOM counting
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure whether that is acceptable or not
>>>>
>>>> That aside you should check if orig_throwable is non-null before
>>>> clearing to avoid an unnecessary JNI call.
>>>>
>>>> Also "Resume original exception" -> "Restore any original exception"
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/04/26 11:16, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa, Kumar,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turns out this change breaks the behaviour of the launcher in the
>>>>>> case
>>>>>> that main() completes by throwing an exception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we have in the launcher is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (*env)->CallStaticVoidMethod(env, mainClass, mainID, mainArgs);
>>>>>> ret = (*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env) == NULL ? 0 : 1;
>>>>>> LEAVE();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where LEAVE would have expanded to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if ((*vm)->DetachCurrentThread(vm) != JNI_OK) { \
>>>>>> JLI_ReportErrorMessage(JVM_ERROR2); \
>>>>>> ret = 1; \
>>>>>> } \
>>>>>> if (JNI_TRUE) { \
>>>>>> (*vm)->DestroyJavaVM(vm); \
>>>>>> return ret; \
>>>>>> } \
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so note that we are potentially calling DetachCurrentThread with an
>>>>>> exception pending - which is prohibited by JNI**, but which we
>>>>>> actually rely on for desired operation as DetachCurrentThread calls
>>>>>> thread->exit() which performs uncaught exception handling (ie it
>>>>>> prints the exception message and stacktrace) and then clears the
>>>>>> exception! (Hence DestroyJavaVM is not called with any pending
>>>>>> exceptions.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **JNI spec needs to be modified here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the current change we have now inserted the following at the
>>>>>> start of LEAVE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SetNativeThreadName(env, "DestroyJavaVM"); \
>>>>>> if ((*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env)) { \
>>>>>> (*env)->ExceptionClear(env); \
>>>>>> } \
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this has two unintended consequences:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. SetNativeThreadName itself calls a number of JNI methods, with the
>>>>>> exception pending - which is not permitted. So straight away where we
>>>>>> have:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NULL_CHECK(cls = FindBootStrapClass(env, "java/lang/Thread"));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FindBootStrapClass calls JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader, which make
>>>>>> calls
>>>>>> using the VM's CHECK_NULL macro - which checks for a pending
>>>>>> exception
>>>>>> (which it finds) and returns NULL. So the jli NULL_CHECK macro then
>>>>>> reports a JNI error:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Error: A JNI error has occurred, please check your installation and
>>>>>> try again
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. There is no longer an exception from main() for
>>>>>> DetachCurrentThread
>>>>>> to report, so we exit with a return code of 1 as required, but don't
>>>>>> report the exception message/stacktrace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see a reasonable solution for this other than abandoning the
>>>>>> attempt to change the name from "main" to "DestroyJavaVM" - which if
>>>>>> we can't do, I question the utility of setting the name in the first
>>>>>> place (while it might be useful in some circumstances [when main() is
>>>>>> running] it will cause confusion in others [when main() has exited]).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/04/2016 3:47 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Looks good to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll sponsor this "tomorrow".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/04/2016 11:24 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Kumar,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment!
>>>>>>>> I've fixed them and uploaded new webrev. Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.06/hotspot/
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.06/jdk/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/23 1:14, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also a couple of minor suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - * Set native thread name as possible.
>>>>>>>>> + * Set native thread name if possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>>>> - * We can clear pending exception because exception at this
>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>> - * is not critical.
>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>>>> + * Clear non critical pending exceptions at this point.
>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Kumar
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is in the wrong place:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1715 if ((*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env)) {
>>>>>>>>>> 1716 /*
>>>>>>>>>> 1717 * We can clear pending exception because exception at
>>>>>>>>>> this point
>>>>>>>>>> 1718 * is not critical.
>>>>>>>>>> 1719 */
>>>>>>>>>> 1720 (*env)->ExceptionClear(env);
>>>>>>>>>> 1721 }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This above needs to be after
>>>>>>>>>> 391 SetNativeThreadName(env, "main");
>>>>>>>>>> 392
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is why, supposing 1704 through 1711, returns a NULL,
>>>>>>>>>> but have also encountered an exception. In which case
>>>>>>>>>> the method SetNativeThreadName will return to the caller, as
>>>>>>>>>> if nothing has happened, because NULL_CHECK simply checks for
>>>>>>>>>> NULL
>>>>>>>>>> and returns to the caller. This will cause the caller to enter
>>>>>>>>>> the VM with exceptions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kumar
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2016 5:11 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to report the exception, but can just
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Either way we have to clear the exception before
>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've fixed it in new webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.05/hotspot/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.05/jdk/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/22 15:33, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/04/2016 1:36 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have uploaded webrev.04 as below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - hotspot:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.04/hotspot/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - jdk:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.04/jdk/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As per private email (but repeated here on the record) in
>>>>>>>>>>>> java.c:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 715 if ((*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1716 JLI_ReportExceptionDescription(env);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1717 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to report the exception, but can just
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Either way we have to clear the exception before
>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016/04/19 22:43 "Yasumasa Suenaga" <yasuenag at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:yasuenag at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thank you for your comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I uploaded new webrev. Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - hotspot:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.04/hotspot/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - jdk:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.04/jdk/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> That aside I'm not sure why you do this so late in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have done it immediately after here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I think that native thread name ("main") should be set just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > main method call.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > However, main thread is already started, so I moved it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> One thing I dislike about the current structure is that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> go from char* to java.lang.String to call setNativeName which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName which converts the j.l.String back
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> char* !
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > SoI proposed to export new JVM function to set native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > const char *.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 2016/04/19 14:04, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks for persevering with this to get it into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I haven't been able to do a detailed review until now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On 19/04/2016 9:28 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Hi Gerard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 2016/04/19 3:14 "Gerard Ziemski"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gerard.ziemski at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:gerard.ziemski at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:gerard.ziemski at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:gerard.ziemski at oracle.com>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > Nice work. I have 2 questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > ========
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > File: java.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > #1 Shouldn’t we be checking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “(*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env)”
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> after every single JNI call? In this example instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NULL_CHECK,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> should we be using CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE macro?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> It is not critical if we encounter error at JNI function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> we cannot set native thread name only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> So I think that we do not need to leave from launcher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I agree we do not need to abort if an exception occurs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think an exception is even possible from this code),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should ensure any pending exception is cleared before any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> futher JNI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls might be made. Note that NULL_CHECK is already used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensively
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the launcher code - so if this usage is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong! More on this code below ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Other comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> hotspot/src/share/vm/prims/jvm.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Please add a comment to the method now that you removed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> // Sets the native thread name for a JavaThread. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> // requested JNI-attached threads can also have their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name set;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> // otherwise we do not modify JNI-attached threads as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> // with the application that created them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> jdk/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Thread.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Please add the following comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + // Don't modify JNI-attached threads
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> setNativeName(name, false);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + // May be called directly via JNI or reflection (when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + // allow JNI-attached threads to set their native name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> private native void setNativeName(String name, boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowAttachedThread);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> jd/src/java.base/share/native/libjli/java.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 328 #define LEAVE() \
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 329 SetNativeThreadName(env, "DestroyJavaVM"); \
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I was going to suggest this be set later, but realized we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached to do this and that happens inside DestroyJavaVM. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + /* Set native thread name. */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + SetNativeThreadName(env, "main");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> The comment is redundant given the name of the method.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why you do this so late in the process, I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it immediately after here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 386 if (!InitializeJVM(&vm, &env, &ifn)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 387 JLI_ReportErrorMessage(JVM_ERROR1);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 388 exit(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 389 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + SetNativeThreadName(env, "main");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + /**
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + * Set native thread name as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> + */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Other than the as->if change I'm unclear where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "possible"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes into play - why would it not be possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1705 NULL_CHECK(cls = FindBootStrapClass(env,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "java/lang/Thread"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1706 NULL_CHECK(currentThreadID =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*env)->GetStaticMethodID(env,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cls,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1707 "currentThread",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "()Ljava/lang/Thread;"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1708 NULL_CHECK(currentThread =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*env)->CallStaticObjectMethod(env, cls,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1709 currentThreadID));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1710 NULL_CHECK(setNativeNameID =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*env)->GetMethodID(env,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cls,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1711 "setNativeName",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(Ljava/lang/String;Z)V"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1712 NULL_CHECK(nameString = (*env)->NewStringUTF(env,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1713 (*env)->CallVoidMethod(env, currentThread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setNativeNameID,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 1714 nameString, JNI_TRUE);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> As above NULL_CHECK is fine here, but we should check for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any pending exception after CallVoidMethod.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> One thing I dislike about the current structure is that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> go from char* to java.lang.String to call setNativeName which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName which converts the j.l.String back
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> char* !
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Overall I wonder about the affect on startup cost. But if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue we can revisit this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > #2 Should the comment for “SetNativeThreadName” be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> name if possible.” not "Set native thread name as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Sorry for my bad English :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > On Apr 16, 2016, at 4:29 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <yasuenag at gmail.com <mailto:yasuenag at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:yasuenag at gmail.com <mailto:yasuenag at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > I uploaded new webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > - hotspot:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.03/hotspot/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > - jdk:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.03/jdk/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> it won't work unless you change the semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setName so I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> not sure what you were thinking here. To take advantage
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arg
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> JVM_SetNativThreadName you would need to call it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> code will call it . ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > I added a flag for setting native thread name to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNI-attached
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > This change can set native thread name if main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> JNI-attached thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > On 2016/04/16 16:11, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> On 16/04/2016 3:27 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> That change in behaviour may be a problem, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> regression that setName stops setting the native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main, even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> though we never really intended it to work in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> :( Such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> a change needs to go through CCC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> I understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> Can I send CCC request?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> (I'm jdk 9 commiter, but I'm not employee at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oracle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> Sorry you can't file a CCC request, you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sponsor for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> that. But at this stage I don't think I agree with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> because of the change in behaviour - there's no way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> restore the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> "broken" behaviour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> I want to continue to discuss about it on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK-8154331
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> Okay we can do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> Further, we expect the launcher to use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> interface (as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> other processes would), not the internal JVM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> exists for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> the JDK sources to communicate with the JVM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> I think that we do not use JVM interface if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> add new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> method in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> LauncherHelper as below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> ----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> diff -r f02139a1ac84
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/LauncherHelper.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a/src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/LauncherHelper.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> Wed Apr 13 14:19:30 2016 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/LauncherHelper.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> Sat Apr 16 11:25:53 2016 +0900
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> @@ -960,4 +960,8 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> return md.toNameAndVersion() + " ("
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + loc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ")";
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + static void setNativeThreadName(String
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + Thread.currentThread().setName(name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> You could also make that call via JNI directly, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> helper adds much here. But it won't work unless you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> of setName so I'm not sure what you were thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. To
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> advantage of an arg taking JVM_SetNativThreadName you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> it directly as no Java code will call it . ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> diff -r f02139a1ac84
>>>>>>>>>>>>> src/java.base/share/native/libjli/java.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> --- a/src/java.base/share/native/libjli/java.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 13
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:19:30
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> 2016 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +++ b/src/java.base/share/native/libjli/java.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 16
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:25:53
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> 2016 +0900
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> static void PrintUsage(JNIEnv* env, jboolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doXUsage);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> static void ShowSettings(JNIEnv* env, char
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *optString);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> static void ListModules(JNIEnv* env, char
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *optString);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +static void SetNativeThreadName(JNIEnv* env, char
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> static void SetPaths(int argc, char **argv);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> @@ -325,6 +326,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> * mainThread.isAlive() to work as expected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> #define LEAVE() \
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + SetNativeThreadName(env, "DestroyJavaVM"); \
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> do { \
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> if ((*vm)->DetachCurrentThread(vm) !=
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNI_OK)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> { \
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> JLI_ReportErrorMessage(JVM_ERROR2); \
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> @@ -488,6 +490,9 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> mainArgs = CreateApplicationArgs(env, argv,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argc);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE(mainArgs);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + /* Set native thread name. */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + SetNativeThreadName(env, "main");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> /* Invoke main method. */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> (*env)->CallStaticVoidMethod(env, mainClass,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainID,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainArgs);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> @@ -1686,6 +1691,22 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> joptString);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + * Set native thread name as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +static void
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +SetNativeThreadName(JNIEnv *env, char *name)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + jmethodID setNativeThreadNameID;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + jstring nameString;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + jclass cls = GetLauncherHelperClass(env);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + NULL_CHECK(cls);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + NULL_CHECK(setNativeThreadNameID =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> (*env)->GetStaticMethodID(env, cls,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + "setNativeThreadName",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(Ljava/lang/String;)V"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + NULL_CHECK(nameString =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*env)->NewStringUTF(env,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> + (*env)->CallStaticVoidMethod(env, cls,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setNativeThreadNameID,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> nameString);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> * Prints default usage or the Xusage message,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> sun.launcher.LauncherHelper.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> ----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> So I want to add new arg to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> However this is still a change to the exported
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface and so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> has to be approved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> Do you mean that this change needs CCC?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2016-April/019034.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>> On 2016/04/16 7:26, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> On 15/04/2016 11:20 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> I think it is a bug based on the comment here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> JavaThread(bool is_attaching_via_jni =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false); //
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thread and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> JNI attached threads
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> I filed it to JBS as JDK-8154331.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> I will send review request to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hotspot-runtime-dev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> Though that will introduce a change in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> setName
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> will no longer set the native name for the main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> I know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> That change in behaviour may be a problem, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> regression that setName stops setting the native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main, even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> though we never really intended it to work in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> :( Such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> a change needs to go through CCC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> I checked changeset history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName() was introduced in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK-7098194,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> backported JDK 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> Yes this all came in as part of the OSX port in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7u2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> However, this function seems to be called from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Thread#setNativeName()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> In addition, Thread#setNativeName() is private
>>>>>>>>>>>>> method.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> Thus I think that we can add an argument to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> for force setting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> (e.g. "bool forced")
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> It makes a change of JVM API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> However, this function is NOT public, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> add one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> What do you think about this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> If it is accepted, we can set native thread name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> launcher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> The private/public aspect of the Java API is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> issue. Yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> we would add another arg to the JVM function to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> JNI-attached threads as well (I'd prefer the arg
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> not just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> "force"). However this is still a change to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exported JVM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> and so has to be approved. Further, we expect the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> launcher to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> supported JNI interface (as other processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> JVM interface that exists for the JDK sources to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> JVM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>> On 2016/04/15 19:16, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> On 15/04/2016 6:53 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> The fact that the "main" thread is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tagged as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> JNI-attached
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> thread seems accidental to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> Should I file it to JBS?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> I think it is a bug based on the comment here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> JavaThread(bool is_attaching_via_jni =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false); //
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thread and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> JNI attached threads
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> Though that will introduce a change in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> setName
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> will no longer set the native name for the main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> I think that we can fix as below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> diff -r 52aa0ee93b32
>>>>>>>>>>>>> src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> --- a/src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp Thu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 14
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13:31:11
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 2016 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> +++ b/src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp Fri
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 15
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17:50:10
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 2016 +0900
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> @@ -3592,7 +3592,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> #endif // INCLUDE_JVMCI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> // Attach the main thread to this os thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> - JavaThread* main_thread = new JavaThread();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> + JavaThread* main_thread = new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JavaThread(true);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> main_thread->set_thread_state(_thread_in_vm);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> main_thread->initialize_thread_current();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> // must do this before set_active_handles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> @@ -3776,6 +3776,9 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> // Notify JVMTI agents that VM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialization
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> - nop if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> no agents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> JvmtiExport::post_vm_initialized();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> + // Change attach status to "attached"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> + main_thread->set_done_attaching_via_jni();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> I think we can do this straight after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JavaThread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> if (TRACE_START() != JNI_OK) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> vm_exit_during_initialization("Failed to start
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tracing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> backend.");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> If it wants to name its native threads then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> Currently, JVM_SetNativeThreadName() cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thread name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> when the caller thread is JNI-attached thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> However, I think that it should be changed if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> Thread#setName() explicitly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> It is not the same of changing native thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> Threads::create_vm().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> If it is allowed, I want to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SetNativeThreadName() as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> What do you think about this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> The decision to not change the name of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNI-attached
>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> deliberate one** - this functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>> originated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the OSX
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> port and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> it was reported that the initial feedback with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature was to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> ensure it didn't mess with thread names that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been set by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the host
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> process. If we do as you propose then we will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> inconsistency for people to complain about:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> native thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> only have a name if I call
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cur.setName(cur.getName()) ?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> ** If you follow the bugs and related
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> semantics and limitations (truncation, current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread only,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> non-JNI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> threads only) of setting the native thread name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were supposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> documented in the release notes - but as far
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> happened. :(
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> My position on this remains that if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> desirable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> thread (and DestroyJavaVM thread) to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> launcher needs to be setting them using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> APIs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> Unfortunately this is complicated - as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidenced by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the VM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> code for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> this - due to the need to verify API
>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> Any change in behaviour in relation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thread.setName would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> have to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> through our CCC process I think. But a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the launcher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> --- a/src/share/vm/prims/jvm.cpp Thu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 14
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13:31:11
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 2016 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> +++ b/src/share/vm/prims/jvm.cpp Fri
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 15
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17:50:10
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 2016 +0900
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> @@ -3187,7 +3187,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> JavaThread* thr =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> java_lang_Thread::thread(java_thread);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> // Thread naming only supported for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> // target threads.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> - if (Thread::current() == thr &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> !thr->has_attached_via_jni()) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> + if (Thread::current() == thr) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> // we don't set the name of an attached
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> stepping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> // on other programs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> const char *thread_name =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> java_lang_String::as_utf8_string(JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(name));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> On 2016/04/15 13:32, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> On 15/04/2016 1:11 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comment!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait to see what Kumar thinks about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> exposing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a new JVM function this way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> I tried to call Thread#setName() after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> initializing VM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> main method),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> I could set native thread name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> However, DestroyJavaVM() calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AttachCurrentThread().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> native thread name for DestroyJavaVM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> Right - I came to the same realization
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Which,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> unfortunately, takes me back to the basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> premise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> set the name of threads not created by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> "main" thread is not tagged as being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNI-attached
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> accidental to me - so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> accident for the initial attach, and can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> DestroyJavaVM part - which leaves the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistently
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> named at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> the native level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> I'm afraid my view here is that the launcher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> treated like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> any other process that might host a JVM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> native threads then it is free to do so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> exporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> a function from the JVM to do that - it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the OS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> specific API's for that on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform-by-platform
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/14 23:24, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> Comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> jvm.h: The function names are too similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> functions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> -JVM_SetNativeThreadName0 vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> - The first function applies to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> one a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> specific java thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> It would seem useful for there to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> the new function does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> windows/native/libjli/java_md.c: line 408
>>>>>>>>>>>>> casts to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (void*)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> (SetNativeThreadName0_t)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> as is done on unix and mac.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> - macosx/native/libjli/java_md_macosx.c:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> - 737: looks wrong to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwriteifn->GetCreatedJavaVMs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> used at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> line 730
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> - 738 Incorrect indentation; if possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cast
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> line as dlsym...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> $.02, Roger
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2016 9:32 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That is an interesting question which I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> check -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sorry. If the main thread is considered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNI-attached
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> my suggestion wont work. If it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (but it means we have an inconsistency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> treatment of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> JNI-attached threads :( )
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I ran following program on JDK 9 EA b112,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> thread name (test) was set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> public class Sleep{
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> public static void main(String[] args)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exception{
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thread.currentThread().setName("test");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thread.sleep(3600000);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait to see what Kumar thinks about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> exposing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a new JVM function this way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I will update webrev after hearing Kumar's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/14 21:32, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 1:52 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/14 9:34, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 1:28 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I exported new JVM function to set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> name, and JLI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in new webrev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> First the launcher belongs to another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> team so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> core-libs will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> review and approve this (in particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kumar) -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now cc'd.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm waiting to review :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I would have used a Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> upcall to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Thread.setName
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than exporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVM_SetNativeThreadName. No
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hotspot changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I wrote [1] in JBS, I changed to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thread#setName() in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thread#init(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I could not change native thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> At Thread.init time the thread is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> why the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> name is not set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that caller of main() is JNI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That is an interesting question which I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> check -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sorry. If the main thread is considered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNI-attached
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> my suggestion wont work. If it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (but it means we have an inconsistency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> treatment of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> JNI-attached threads :( )
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll wait to see what Kumar thinks about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> exposing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a new JVM function this way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think that we have to provide a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function to set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152690?focusedCommentId=13926851&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13926851
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - hotspot:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.02/hotspot/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jdk:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.02/jdk/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/13 22:00, David Holmes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll answer on this original
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see my updates to the bug
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be done in the launcher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of threads that attach via JNI,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "main"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2016 9:49 AM, Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suenaga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Robbin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm waiting a sponsor and more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016/03/31 5:58 "Robbin Ehn"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <robbin.ehn at oracle.com <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI: I'm not a Reviewer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Robbin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/30/2016 10:55 PM, Robbin Ehn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, looks good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Robbin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/30/2016 03:47 PM, Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I uploaded new webrev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/03/30 19:10, Robbin Ehn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/30/2016 11:41 AM, Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suenaga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robbin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016/03/30 18:22 "Robbin Ehn"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <robbin.ehn at oracle.com <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 03/25/2016 12:48 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi Robbin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 2016/03/25 1:51 "Robbin Ehn"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robbin.ehn at oracle.com>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > I'm not sure why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > diff -r ded6ef79c770
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a/src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp Thu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13:09:16 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp Thu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17:40:09 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > @@ -3584,6 +3584,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > JavaThread*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main_thread =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> JavaThread();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> main_thread->set_thread_state(_thread_in_vm);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main_thread->initialize_thread_current();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> main_thread->set_native_thread_name("main");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > // must do this before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> set_active_handles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main_thread->record_stack_base_and_size();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main_thread->set_active_handles(JNIHandleBlock::allocate_block());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > here instead? Am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Native thread name is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> name in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> It is set in c'tor in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thread or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setName().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> If you create new thread in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> app,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> startup. However, main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> starte
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in VM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thread name for "main" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create_initial_thread().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I think that the place of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrrad name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Yes, I see your point. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nicer, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a/src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Mar 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09:43:05
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Mar 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:51:12
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > @@ -981,6 +981,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > // Creates the initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > static oop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> create_initial_thread(Handle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread_group,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JavaThread*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > TRAPS) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > + static const char*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial_thread_name =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> "main";
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Klass* k =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SystemDictionary::resolve_or_fail(vmSymbols::java_lang_Thread(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHECK_NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > instanceKlassHandle klass
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (THREAD, k);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > instanceHandle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread_oop =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> klass->allocate_instance_handle(CHECK_NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > @@ -988,8 +989,10 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> java_lang_Thread::set_thread(thread_oop(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thread);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> java_lang_Thread::set_priority(thread_oop(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NormPriority);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread->set_threadObj(thread_oop());
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > - Handle string =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> java_lang_String::create_from_str("main",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHECK_NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thread->set_native_thread_name(initial_thread_name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > + Handle string =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> java_lang_String::create_from_str(initial_thread_name,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHECK_NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > JavaValue result(T_VOID);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JavaCalls::call_special(&result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread_oop,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I will upload new webrev
>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > The launcher seem to name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'java' and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > 'main' is confusing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > E.g. so main thread of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'java' but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > first JavaThread is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'main'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> The native main thread in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JavaThread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> for ending of Java main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pthread_join().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> set_native_thread_name() is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> JavaThread. So I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> need to call it for native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Not sure if we can change it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyhow, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> we want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name to be the same and java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The name is visible in e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /proc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > $ ps H -C java -o 'pid tid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comm'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> | head -4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > PID TID COMMAND
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 6423 6423 java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 6423 6424 main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 6423 6425 GC Thread#0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It would be nice with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Java Main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thread'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Native main thread might not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> launcher - e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons-daemon, JNI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to change native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change Java launcher code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I include it in new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> webrev?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Robbin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > /Robbin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > /Robbin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > On 03/24/2016 03:26 PM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > HotSpot for Linux will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> name via
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pthread_setname_np().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > However, main thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > All JavaThread have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JavaThread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > For consistency, main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > I uploaded a webrev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8152690/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > I cannot access JPRT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > So I need a sponsor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list