RFR(s): 8145000: TestOptionsWithRanges.java failure for XX:+UseNUMA -XX:+UseNUMAInterleaving -XX:NUMAInterleaveGranularity=65536

[Tom Benson]

Hi Sangheon,

On 12/18/2015 6:02 PM, sangheon wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 12/17/2015 04:23 PM, sangheon wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing this!
>>
>> On 12/17/2015 01:28 PM, Tom Benson wrote:
>>> Hi Sangheon,
>>> I like the new approach, but just have a couple of comments.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>> I think you should check the VirtualQuery return status and return 
>>> false from protect_pages_individually if zero.
>> Right.
>> I will fix this.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't *think* you need to have the "!UseLargePages" restriction 
>>> anymore with this approach, do you?
>> protect_pages_individually() doesn't have previous restriction on its 
>> usage.
>> However I wanted to remain the caller(os::protect_memory) as is 
>> because, as you already mentioned below, I didn't want to have an 
>> additional call of VirtualQuery() for simpler code.
>> I don't have strong opinion on this.
>>
>> Let me post next webrev after concluding this.
> Tom, do you prefer to always use protect_pages_individually()?
> Does anyone have opinion on this?
>

I'd vote for leaving the UseNUMAInterleaving test in.
Tom

> Thanks,
> Sangheon
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sangheon
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I think you could just always use 
>>> protect_pages_individually regardless of whether UseNUMAInterleaving 
>>> was enabled or not, and the right thing would happen.  But this way, 
>>> you save an unnecessary system call plus some overhead.
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>