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

[Jesper Wilhelmsson]

Hi Sangheon,

I like this version a lot better.
I have no further comments except for what Tom already mentioned about checking 
VirtualQuery return value.
/Jesper


Den 19/12/15 kl. 00:39, skrev 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
>>>>
>>>>
>