<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
Thank you for this limited but creative solution to the problem that
we don't want decorators on some logging tag combinations. This
would be useful for some runtime tracing that we didn't convert to
UL because we don't want decorators, e.g. -XX:+PrintInterpreter.<br>
<br>
I like it a lot.<br>
Coleen<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/30/24 5:32 AM, Anton Seoane
Ampudia wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DM4PR10MB7475A31DE03F7EC290708654AF762@DM4PR10MB7475.namprd10.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">Yes. I agree on the original idea being more
flexible, but it has the risk of defaults being not
completely agreed on and “infecting” some people’s expected
output. The (only) use case that has driven this has been
the “no decorators” default, which is what I am tentatively
restricting the original idea to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">As Roberto Castañeda mentioned before, yes,
this would be equivalent to -Xlog:tags::none, but a bit more
ergonomic and convenient considering that with the upcoming
compiler migration to UL many of these undecorated output
cases will appear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">Antón<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="color:black">hotspot-dev
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hotspot-dev-retn@openjdk.org"><hotspot-dev-retn@openjdk.org></a> on behalf of
David Holmes <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:david.holmes@oracle.com"><david.holmes@oracle.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, 30 September 2024 at 02:39<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hotspot-dev@openjdk.org">hotspot-dev@openjdk.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hotspot-dev@openjdk.org"><hotspot-dev@openjdk.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: 8340363: Tag-specific default
decorators for UnifiedLogging<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Anton,<br>
<br>
Thanks for bringing this up for general discussion
outside the PR.<br>
<br>
Just to be clear for other readers, decorators are
associated with a <br>
given log output device.<br>
<br>
On 27/09/2024 7:07 pm, Anton Seoane Ampudia wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> Currently, the Unified Logging framework
defaults to three decorators <br>
> (uptime, level, tags) whenever the user does
not specify otherwise <br>
> through -Xlog. This resultssometimes
inconvenient when specific users <br>
> with some predefined needs do not want those
tags. For example, C2 <br>
> developers would rather not see those defaults
in cases such as <br>
> jit+inlining, but also do not want to specify
so every time they run -Xlog.<br>
> <br>
> One solution for this is found in this PR: </span><a href="https://github.com/openjdk/" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://github.com/openjdk/</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">
<br>
> jdk/pull/20988 <</span><a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20988" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20988</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>. It can be
<br>
> considered as a “flavoured” version of the
existing default decorators <br>
> and in no way it will override anything
user-specified. Also, decorators <br>
> will still be consistent throughout an output
device (i.e., no different <br>
> decorators “mixed in”).<br>
> <br>
> However, upon recent talks with different teams
this approach may be too <br>
> flexible/powerful. The ability of specifying
LogSelection-bound default <br>
> decorators may result in a situation where
defaults for A+B and C+D have <br>
> been specified, and a user selects
-Xlog:A+B,C+D. In that case, the <br>
> union of the prespecified defaults is taken,
which may not be what the <br>
> end user wants (and might result in too many
decorators).<br>
> <br>
> Actually, the main use case for this that I
know as of now is C2 <br>
> developers and the wish to not see decorators
for some defined log <br>
> selections. With this in mind, I have reduced
the original idea to a <br>
> feature where only the default decorators are
not shown if we get a <br>
> positive match with a prespecified list
throughout the entire user log <br>
> selection list (i.e.:<br>
> <br>
> * If there is a default for A+B and the user
specifies -Xlog:A+B,C+D,<br>
> he will still get the default decorators<br>
> * If there is a default for A+B and the user
specifies -Xlog:A+B, no<br>
> default decorators will be supplied).<br>
<br>
So to be clear, is the proposal now to just drop the
default decorators, <br>
rather than allowing them to be replaced with
alternate defaults? If <br>
that is the case then it is the same as writing:<br>
<br>
-Xlog:A+B::none<br>
<br>
and I don't really see much value in that. But I
wouldn't oppose it.<br>
<br>
Allowing new defaults gives more flexibility - but
obviously the <br>
developers using the specific tag combinations have
to agree on what <br>
defaults to set.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
David<br>
-----<br>
<br>
> Before scraping the original idea and moving on
with this one (which <br>
> will not change anything as it is right now,
except for the really <br>
> specific uses like C2 jit+inlining that may be
decided), *I wanted to <br>
> get a broader idea of people’s opinions on
this, as well as other use <br>
> cases for this behaviour.*<br>
> <br>
> **<br>
> <br>
> Many thanks,<br>
> <br>
> Antón<br>
> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>