RFR: 8143157: Convert TraceVMOperation to Unified Logging

[Coleen Phillimore]

I think this looks great.  If we someday decide to change 
-Xlog:vmoperation=debug to info, we can file an RFE to do so.

thanks!
Coleen

On 11/20/15 2:27 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
> Thank you, David, Kirk, Marcus, Max, and Coleen, for all your comments.
>
> Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8143157.01/
> Changes:
> - moved initialization of "outputStream* debugstream" to inside 
> vmoperation conditional
> - added boolean for log_is_enabled conditional to save duplicate 
> operation and avoid possibility that flag has been enabled/disabled 
> between calls
> - removed "[" and "]" from the  beginning and end delimiters of the 
> logging output. Added "begin" and "end" as lead-in to log VMOperation 
> thread info statements instead (could not insert in middle of string 
> because print_on_error is used in other places).*
> - added memory heap limit to test (ProcessBuilder call in 
> VMOperationTest) and added comment to VMOperationTestMain
>
> Thank you,
> Rachel
>
> *Sample output:
>
>    $ java -Xlog:vmoperation=debug VMOperationTestMain
>    [0.262s][debug  ][vmoperation] begin VM_Operation
>    (0x00007f01a029a700): G1CollectFull, mode: safepoint, requested by
>    thread 0x00007f0198018000
>    [0.278s][debug  ][vmoperation] end VM_Operation
>    (0x00007f01a029a700): G1CollectFull, mode: safepoint, requested by
>    thread 0x00007f0198018000
>
>
>
> On 11/17/2015 2:50 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review the following small logging enhancement.
>>
>> Summary: The former -XX:+TraceVMOperation flag is updated to the 
>> unified logging framework and is now replaced with -Xlog:vmoperation 
>> in product mode.
>>
>> Open webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8143157/
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143157
>> Testing: Passes jtreg, JPRT, RBT quick tests, and refworkload 
>> performance tests.
>>
>> A compatability request has been accepted with regard to this change.
>>
>> Thank you very much,
>> Rachel
>