Request for review: 8020530 Non heap memory size calculated incorrectly

[Vladimir Kempik]

Thanks everyone for comments.

Here is updated webrev 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkempik/8020530/webrev.01/

Vladimir.
On 21.08.2013 1:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
> On 8/20/2013 5:38 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would a pool have 
>> undefined values?
>> The Metaspace pool has no max value (unless you specify 
>> -XX:MaxMetaspaceSize=), thus undefined.
>>
>>> If a subset of pools have undefined values why report completely 
>>> fallacious values of -1?
>> The javadoc for MemoryUsage says getMax() returns -1 if the maximum 
>> memory size is undefined.
>
> Yes the spec allows implementation of memory pools with undefined 
> max.  "used" and "committed" must have a value and the "committed" 
> memory is guaranteed to be available for the VM to use.  "max" will 
> give an idea of the upper bound how much memory can be allocated from 
> it; however, there is no guarantee that amount of memory is available 
> for the VM.
>
>>> It also isn't clear how this relates to the "committed" value in the 
>>> failure. What gets reported now?
>> I guess there can still be a committed value even if we don't have a 
>> max value for how much we might commit in the future: used <= 
>> committed <= max.
>
> The MemoryUsage constructor throws IAE if committed > max if max is 
> defined.  Perhaps it would be better if max should be Long.MAX_VALUE 
> if undefined (a different issue than this bug).
>
> Mandy
>
>> /Staffan
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vladimir
>>>>
>