RFR 8078555(M): GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing

[sangheon.kim]

Hi Kim,

On 08/28/2015 09:50 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2015, at 2:44 AM, sangheon.kim <sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jon, Gerard and Derek,
>>
>> Here's the new webrev which includes:
>> 1. @requires vm.gc==xx for 4 test cases. (Derek)
>> 2. Change INITIAL_RANGES_SIZE and INITIAL_CONSTRAINTS_SIZE to current actual size. (Gerard)
>> 3. Range of G1UpdateBufferSize is 'NOT_LP64(32*M) LP64_ONLY(1*G)'. (Jon)
>> 4. 'amount' to 'count' at G1YoungSurvRateNumRegionsSummaryConstraintFunc. (Jon)
>> 5. Add more explanation for CheckMaxHeapSizeAndSoftRefLRUPolicyMSPerMB. (Jon)
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8078555/webrev.04
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8078555/webrev.04_to_03
> One trivial nit, and a question:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> src/share/vm/runtime/commandLineFlagConstraintsGC.cpp
>   193                             "Desired life time of SoftReferences cannot be expressed correctly. "
>
> "life time" => "lifetime"
Okay, fixed.

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 1. @requires vm.gc==xx for 4 test cases. (Derek)
> Is this actually needed?  I'm not sure how the process builder works.
> Does it use any options from the calling process?
If you are asking about any options are passed via @run tag, NO these 4 
tests don't use them.
e.g.
@run main/othervm -XX:xxxxx

I added them as ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder() takes specific 
GC mode options.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the tag.

Anyone can give clear advice for this? Derek?

>    If not, then I
> don't think these new @requires are needed.
>
> Hm, I see lots of G1 tests that use the process builder and don't have
> @requires lines, which argues this block of changes is not needed.
Right.

>
> Sorry I didn't notice this when the change was suggested.
Not at all.

Thanks,
Sangheon


>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Otherwise, looks good.
>