RFR: JDK-8149541: Use log_error() instead of log_info() when verification reports a problem

[Bengt Rutisson]

Thanks, Jesper!

Bengt

On 2016-02-10 16:25, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
> Looks good!
> /Jesper
>
> Den 10/2/16 kl. 16:12, skrev Bengt Rutisson:
>>
>> Hi Jesper,
>>
>> Thanks for looking at this!
>>
>> On 2016-02-10 15:41, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Slightly unrelated to the actual change, but the "Verification 
>>> failed" message
>>> in concurrentMarkSweepGeneration.cpp could be a bit more 
>>> informative, similar
>>> to the message printed by the fatal call below. I was about to write 
>>> that the
>>> log message was redundant due to this fatal call, but the log 
>>> message in the
>>> fatal call looks like it's not printed on all platforms.
>>
>> Sounds good. Here's an updated webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/8149541/webrev.00/
>>
>> and the diff compared to the last one:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/8149541/webrev.00-01.diff/
>>
>>>
>>> Besides that it looks good.
>>
>> Great! Thanks!
>>
>> Bengt
>>
>>> /Jesper
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 10/2/16 kl. 13:43, skrev Bengt Rutisson:
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Could I have a couple of reviews for this change?
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/8149541/webrev.00/
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149541
>>>>
>>>> When the GC code was converted to use the unified logging framework 
>>>> the
>>>> verification logging was changed to mostly use:
>>>>
>>>> log_info(gc, vefiy)("Information about verification failure");
>>>>
>>>> The problem with this is that some verification, in particular in 
>>>> G1, does not
>>>> report the relevant information in asserts and guarnatee messages. 
>>>> Instead the
>>>> information is logged ahead of time and at some later point there 
>>>> is something
>>>> like a "guarantee(false, "Verification failed.");"
>>>>
>>>> So, to know what went wrong you really need the information that 
>>>> was logged.
>>>> However when it is logged on log_info(gc, verify) you need to have 
>>>> remembered to
>>>> set -Xlog:gc* on the command line to get this information.
>>>>
>>>> A better solution is to log failure information at the error level. 
>>>> That way it
>>>> is always logged.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bengt
>>