RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing

[sangheon.kim]

Hi Gerard,

On 09/11/2015 12:24 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
> Hi Gerard,
>
> Thank you for looking at this.
>
> On 09/11/2015 11:13 AM, gerard ziemski wrote:
>> hi Sangheon,
>>
>> #1 test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation/TestOptionsWithRanges.java
>>
>> Please change the comment to:
>>
>> +        /*
>> +         * Exclude below options as their maximum value would 
>> consume too much memory
>> +         * and would affect other tests that run in parallel.
>> +         */
> Okay, I will fix as you suggested.
>
>>
>>
>> #2 What tests did you run? Did you run 
>> test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation on all platforms 
>> (including embedded)?
> No.
> I ran tests under test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation 
> (especially TestOptionsWithRanges.java) for all platforms except 
> embedded.
> Let me back after testing on embedded.
I ran for embedded (linux-arm64, linux-armvh, linux-armvfpsflt, 
linux-armvfphflt, linux-armsflt) and all of them PASSED for 
test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation.

Thanks,
Sangheon


>
> Thanks,
> Sangheon
>
>
>>
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>
>> On 09/10/2015 07:01 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Please review this patch for command-line validation for GC flags.
>>> This REDO patch is adding ranges and implementing constraint 
>>> functions for GC flags.
>>>
>>> Original CR of JDK-8078555 was backout as it made a test failure 
>>> from 'TestOptionsWithRanges.java'.
>>> And also there were some discussion of OOM handling.
>>>
>>> Most parts are same as JDK-8078555 except below:
>>> 1. Changed 'range' for some flags.
>>> 2. Excluded 3 flags for TestOptionsWithRanges.java test. These flags 
>>> make this test unstable as it tries to allocate
>>> huge amount of memory.
>>>
>>> And below are the suggestion note for JDK-8078555:
>>> 1. Exponential notation for 'double' type variable parse: Previously 
>>> there were some discussion for maximum value for
>>> double type flags from code review of JDK-8059557 and JDK-8112746. 
>>> And Kim and I decided not to add upper limit unless
>>> there are problems with DBL_MAX. And as 255 is the maximum length 
>>> that can be passed via command-line, we introduced
>>> exponential notation to avoid this limit. ( arguments.cpp )
>>> 2. These GC flags ranges are not ideal ranges but ranges which don't 
>>> make problem with current source code.
>>>      If one flag makes some problem but hard to find good range, I 
>>> added some ranges.
>>> 3. There are some constraint functions to avoid overflow.
>>> 4. Test applications are changed: as some of them assumed to be 
>>> ParallelGC or to check it's output messages.
>>> 5. Includes cleanup of JDK-8133565: GC -2nd followup to JDK-8059557.
>>>
>>> CR:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134995
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.00/
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.00_to_8078555
>>>
>>> Testing:
>>> JPRT, UTE(vm.quick-pcl) and 
>>> test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation/TestOptionsWithRanges.java.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sangheon
>>>
>>>
>