RFR (S): JDK-8020829: JT_HS: 2 runtime NMT tests fail on platforms if NMT detail is not supported

[David Holmes]

On 22/08/2013 5:12 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
> New webrev posted. The only change from the previous one is dropping the
> Platform.java changes.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8020829/webrev-04/

Looks fine to me - thanks.

Still need a second reviewer though. Christian?

David

> thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 8/20/13 6:55 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 21/08/2013 11:47 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>> On 8/20/13 6:26 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> On 21/08/2013 5:33 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>>>> https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8020829
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8020829/webrev-03/
>>>>>
>>>>> On some platforms, NMT detail is not supported, and this was causing
>>>>> some jtreg tests to fail. These tests now query a new WhiteBox API to
>>>>> see if NMT detail is supported, and now behave properly if it is not
>>>>> supported.
>>>>
>>>> Okay.
>>>>
>>>>> I also fixed #ifdef INCLUDE_NMT in whitebox.cpp that should instead be
>>>>> #if INCLUDE_NMT. The source within the #if is now properly excluded
>>>>> from
>>>>> minimal VM builds.
>>>>
>>>> Okay.
>>>>
>>>>> The addition of Platform.isArm() is to support changes in closed
>>>>> source.
>>>>
>>>> I hate seeing these kinds of methods. Add a new platform, add a new
>>>> method - yuck! :(
>>>>
>>>> We could just use getOsArch().toLowerCase().startsWith("arm") directly.
>>>>
>>>> I'd even prefer to see:
>>>>
>>>> boolean isArch(String arch) {
>>>>   return osArch.toLowerCase().startsWith(arch.toLowerCase());
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and similarly for the OS - but that is going beyond this fix :)
>>> I'm not particularly tied to any specific way of doing this. I can do
>>> either of the above if you wish. Just let me know your preference.
>>
>> Drop isArm() please and change the closed usage to
>> getOsArch().toLowerCase().startsWith("arm").
>>
>> I'll file a RFE for Platform :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>> Testing was done using the existing NMT tests, verifying that they now
>>>>> pass on platforms where NMT detail is not supported, and still pass on
>>>>> platforms where NMT detail is supported. A jprt job is currently in
>>>>> the
>>>>> queue to run all NMT jtreg tests on all platforms supported by jprt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Plummer
>>>
>