RFR(XXS): 8203457: Add back missing full buffer notification

[Markus Gronlund]

Thanks Stefan and Claes,

Just pushed.

Cheers
Markus

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Johansson 
Sent: den 21 maj 2018 16:49
To: Markus Gronlund <markus.gronlund at oracle.com>; Claes Redestad <claes.redestad at oracle.com>; hotspot-jfr-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8203457: Add back missing full buffer notification

Looks good to me too,

Thanks for fixing this so quickly.

Cheers,
Stefan

On 2018-05-21 13:32, Markus Gronlund wrote:
> Thanks Claes.
> 
> Good point, I will add in the following:
> 
>    assert(JfrBuffer_lock->owned_by_self(), "invariant");
> 
> Cheers
> Markus
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claes Redestad
> Sent: den 21 maj 2018 13:20
> To: Markus Gronlund <markus.gronlund at oracle.com>; hotspot-jfr-dev at openjdk.java.net; Stefan Johansson <stefan.johansson at oracle.com>
> Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8203457: Add back missing full buffer notification
> 
> Markus,
> 
> On 2018-05-21 10:44, Markus Gronlund wrote:
>> On a full global buffer, the notification is never sent to the recorder thread for it to flush to disk. This means the in-memory buffer system fills up until eventually no free space is left. At this point threads will start to discard data and write "data loss" events.
>>
>> Need to add back the missing notification.
>>
>> Bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203457
>>
>> Webrev:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgronlun/8203457/webrev00/
> 
> thanks for fixing this! Fix looks good, and the cleanups in the neighbourhood seems reasonable, too.
> 
> Nit: Could the "mutexed" accesses assert that we're actually holding the mutex we think we are? No need for a re-review if you choose to fix this.
> 
> /Claes
>