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

[sangheon.kim]

Hi Jesper,

Thanks for reviewing this.

Sangheon


On 09/21/2015 12:46 PM, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
> Looks good!
> /Jesper
>
> Den 14/9/15 kl. 16:23, skrev gerard ziemski:
>> Thank you. I have no more comments - reviewed.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>
>> On 09/12/2015 03:38 AM, sangheon.kim wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>