CRR (XXS): 7078465: G1: Don't use the undefined value (-1) for the G1 old memory pool max size

[Bengt Rutisson]

Tony,

On 2012-01-17 22:19, Tony Printezis wrote:
> Bengt,
>
> I don't think what I had written on the CR actually makes sense. The 
> old gen min capacity cannot be the heap min capacity given that, when 
> the heap capacity is at the minimum, the old gen capacity could be 
> smaller (we need space for the young gen for example). So, I think 
> I'll leave it as is (and I'll update the CR if you agree). 

Good point. I completely agree.

> I did update a couple of related comments in the code, here's the 
> updated webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tonyp/7078465/webrev.1/

Looks good. Great that you found the comment too.

Copyright year needs to be 2012... ;-)

> I'll push it tomorrow as long as noone has any objections.

I am all for it!

Bengt

>
> Tony
>
> On 01/17/2012 03:47 PM, Tony Printezis wrote:
>> Bengt,
>>
>> Good point, I'll add it to the change and do some more testing before 
>> publishing a new webrev. Thanks,
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> On 01/17/2012 07:28 AM, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tony,
>>>
>>> This looks good! :-)
>>>
>>> One question. The CR says "Similarly, we should consider setting the 
>>> old minimum capacity to the heap minimum capacity. This is only used 
>>> by jstat and currently we set the minimum capacity of all the spaces 
>>> to 0.". Do you want to do that as well?
>>>
>>> Bengt
>>>
>>> On 2012-01-12 16:51, Tony Printezis wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like a couple of code reviews for this very small  change (one 
>>>> line!):
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tonyp/7078465/webrev.0/
>>>>
>>>> Currently, all the G1 memory pools return "undefined" (-1) as their 
>>>> max size given that there are no hard boundaries between them. Jon 
>>>> Masamitsu suggested to at least return the heap max for the old 
>>>> memory pool so that the pool data is a little bit more informative.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>