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

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 7/8/14 9:06 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> On 7/8/14 8:16 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> 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).
>
> I'll politely disagree.

And I'll correct myself. :-)

-XX: cmd line options are no longer considered to be 'internal' by
default. With the advent of OpenJDK and the OpenJDK bug database,
any '-XX:' cmd line options are in full public view and need to be
sifted into the appropriate taxonomy:

     exported external
     exported private
     exported internal

Also, some '-XX:' cmd line options are documented on the java man
page so when a new '-XX:' cmd line is added, we have to decide if
it will be added to the man page.

Sorry for the confusion.

Dan


>
> Dan
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>