RFR (XXS) JDK-8046919: jni_PushLocalFrame OOM - increase MAX_REASONABLE_LOCAL_CAPACITY

[David Holmes]

On 8/07/2014 11:30 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> On 7/8/14 5:07 AM, David Simms wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> And here it is again with a flag "MaxJNILocalCapacity" (will require
>> CCC before pushing).
>
> I don't believe that '-XX:' flags require a CCC approval.

Yes they do. In part to establish what kind of interface they represent 
(Exported external|private|internal).

David

> Dan
>
>
>>
>> Web review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsimms/8046919/
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046919
>>
>> /David Simms
>>
>> On 2014-07-07 14:47, David Simms wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree on adding a flag, will update the patch...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-07-07 13:40, Frederic Parain wrote:
>>>> Looks good to me.
>>>> I'm just wondering if we really want to keep an arbitrary
>>>> value hard code in our code, or if there's a real use
>>>> case to have a tunable parameter to implement this limit
>>>> (I'm OK with both solutions).
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Fred
>>>>
>>>> On 07/07/2014 13:25, David Simms wrote:
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> Small fix to adjust the local JNI handle capacity check
>>>>> (MAX_REASONABLE_LOCAL_CAPACITY) for "EnsureLocalCapacity" and
>>>>> "PushLocalFrame", from 4k to 64k handles.
>>>>>
>>>>> This fairly arbitrary number is currently meant for sanity checking
>>>>> the
>>>>> "capacity" argument, actual handle allocation is "lazy on demand" as
>>>>> "JNIHandleBlock" are never freed (but placed on free list).
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug URL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046919
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsimms/8046919/
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing: jprt, Test7007040 (see: JDK-7007040), and internal tests:
>>>>> "vm.quick.testlist nsk.jvmti.testlist vm.runtime.testlist
>>>>> WeblogicMedrec
>>>>> runThese Kitchensink"
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> /David Simms
>>>>
>>>
>>
>