RFR(S): 8186286: [BSD] Primary thread's stack size is reported incorrectly

[Thomas Stüfe]

Hi Gunter,

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Haug, Gunter <gunter.haug at sap.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the review, Aleksey and Thomas
>
>
>
> You’re right, it is much nicer to use the macros. I’ve updated the change
> accordingly:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ghaug/webrevs/8186286.v1
>
>
> Small typo: boundries->boundaries

Otherwise this is fine. I do not need a new webrev.


> @Thomas: os::vm_page_size() is not used in current_stack_region(), I think
> because of initialization dependencies.
>
>
Yes, I thought so.

Kind Regards, Thomas


>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gunter
>
>
>
> *From: *Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 17. August 2017 at 15:06
> *To: *"Haug, Gunter" <gunter.haug at sap.com>
> *Cc: *"hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net" <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> *Subject: *Re: RFR(S): 8186286: [BSD] Primary thread's stack size is
> reported incorrectly
>
>
>
> Hi Gunter,
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Haug, Gunter <gunter.haug at sap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> can I please have reviews and a sponsor fort the following small bug fix:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ghaug/webrevs/8186286/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186286
>
> At least on Mac OS 10.12 we have observed stack sizes of the primary
> thread not aligned to pages boundries. This can be provoked by e.g.
> setrlimit() (ulimit -s xxxx in the shell).This voids the computation of the
> addresses of the guard pages.
>
> Fix:
> Apparently Mac OS actually rounds upwards to next multiple of page size
> however, it is conservative to round downwards here to be on the safe side.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Gunter
>
>
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
>
>
> Very minor nits: what Alexey wrote (we also have "is_aligned"). Plus, any
> reason not to use os::vm_page_size()? Initialization dependencies?
>
>
>
> Kind Regards, Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>