Request for review: 6941923: RFE: Handling large log files produced by long running Java Applications

[Yumin Qi]

Hi, Ramki, Jesper and all

  Changes has beed made according to previous codereview and discussion. 
New webrev available at:

    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~minqi/6941923/webrev.05

  In this version, also a few cleanup changes.

  The logic now for rotating gc log file is:
  -XX:+UseGCLogFileRotation -XX:NumberOfGCLogFiles=<num_of_files> 
-XX:GCLogFileSize=<logsize>

  UseGCLogFileRotation must be set, if rotation in on depends on other 
two flag settings: they must be > 0, either of them is 0 will lead 
rotation not set.
  Added a test case to verify(note it lasts ~5 minutes to check file 
rotation).

Thanks
Yumin


On 05/06/11 03:50 PM, yumin.qi at oracle.com wrote:
>  Hi, Ramki and all
>
>   This is a new webrev for the changes.
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~minqi/6941923/webrev.04
>
>   In this change, a class rotatingFileStream derived from fileStream 
> used to handle log rotation. UseGCLogFileRotation is a must for doing 
> gc log rotation, and it depends on other two flag setting for the 
> rotation really to happen:
>
>   To enable gc log rotation,
>   -Xloggc:<filename> -XX:+UseGCLogFileRotation 
> -XX:NumberOfGCLogFiles=<num_of_files> -XX:GCLogFileSize=<num_of_size>
>
>   where num_of_files > 0 and num_of_size > 0
>   Either one of above is 0 will lead to not having GC log rotation, 
> this is the default as no changes.
>   For NumberOfGCLogFiles=1, the log file name will be <filename>.0 and 
> log output rotation happens in one file. For NumberOfGCLogFiles > 1, 
> happens in multiple files.
>
>   filename must be provided or rotation will not set.
>
>   I added another flag, MinGCLogFileSize, this is for test purpose, to 
> make the test case can run in a short period to verify the code 
> changes. Default value is 32MB, if GCLogFileSize set to less than this 
> number, it will be set to MinGCLogFileSize.
>
>   As mentioned, a test case added to verify the result.
>
> Thanks
> Yumin
>
> On 5/5/2011 9:35 AM, Y. S. Ramakrishna wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yumin --
>>
>> On 05/05/11 08:38, Yumin Qi wrote:
>> ...
>>> So, default behavior not changed if GCLogFileSize=0 and 
>>> NumberOfGCLogFiles=0.
>>> If #file > 0, but GCLogFileSize=0, it is still confused since we use 
>>> file.0 and output to it at no limit. The #file seems only make sense 
>>> for 1.
>>
>> Well, I was using a limit ordinal analogy here. When you reach the
>> first limit ordinal, \omega, you will flip to the next file.
>> Of course in real life we won't. But it's OK to do what you
>> suggest below. It just entails extra args checking, which is fine too.
>>
>>>
>>> I would like if #file > 0 and GCLogFileSize=0, we still keep current 
>>> behavior - no rotation. (GCLogFileSize default is 0, no limit as you 
>>> said).
>>
>> That's fine too.
>>
>>>
>>> That is, if rotation stands, UseGCLogRotation ,must be true.
>>> 1) If GCLogFileSize is default (0), no rotation; 
>>> UseGCLogFileRotation is false
>>> 2) If #file is default (0), no rotation.   UseGCLogFileRotation is 
>>> false.
>>
>> OK; i am sure you will need to straighten this out in the
>> CCC spec and spell out the restrictions if any on
>> the allowed combinations etc.
>>
>>> This is why I need your review here. The rotation only done at STW, 
>>> so seems the lock is not necessary here. Remove the locking code, 
>>> will put comments to indicating this function only called at 
>>> safepoint and add assert at safepoint.
>>
>> It's fine to do the locking. I have no objection to the locking;
>> my question was why the locking was elided for those two cases.
>> It would seem to me that you'd need some way to make sure that
>> the stream is not under active use when the rotation occurs,
>> and the lock would be a fine way to ensure that the stream is
>> never accessed except under protection of the lock. I can see
>> that the rotation is done at a STW pause when no mutator is
>> running. It turns out today that no daemons run at that time
>> either, but it is conceivable that some may in the future
>> and have access to or attempt tp access that stream/log.
>> We should make the code robust in the face of future such
>> evolution, by at least putting in enough controls, and
>> the lock would seem to me to be a fine mechanism to do so.
>> (After auditing the code to make sure that the handle is
>> not accessible outside the lock.)
>>
>> -- ramki