PING: RFR: JDK-8153074: UL: Show output option in VM.log jcmd
David Holmes
david.holmes at oracle.com
Fri Jul 1 02:22:15 UTC 2016
On 30/06/2016 11:13 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
>> Looks good, thanks for fixing this.
>
> Thanks!
> I'm waiting a second reviewer and accepting FC extension request.
Reviewed. This looks much neater. Thanks.
David
-----
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> On 2016/06/30 22:10, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On 2016-06-30 15:01, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>
>>>> Can we keep the printing of the index # in LogConfiguration? That
>>>> would save us from passing it as a parameter to describe. (So, print
>>>> index, call describe, and then print newline.)
>>>
>>> I've fixed it.
>>> Could you review again?
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.07/
>>
>> Looks good, thanks for fixing this.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Yasumasa
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016/06/30 18:38, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-30 11:31, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore I suggest that we introduce a describe() function in
>>>>>>> LogOutput as part of this change, and move the code currently in
>>>>>>> LogConfiguration::describe to this function, adding the option
>>>>>>> text to it as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, I understood.
>>>>> If we refactor that in this enhancement, we do not need to make
>>>>> dynamic memory allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I uploaded a new webrev.
>>>>> I hope this webrev matches your suggestion :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.06/
>>>>
>>>> Looks good! Just a nit: Can we keep the printing of the index # in
>>>> LogConfiguration? That would save us from passing it as a parameter
>>>> to describe. (So, print index, call describe, and then print newline.)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/06/28 22:21, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't really like that we need to make dynamic allocations here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should use resource area? or char array?
>>>>>> If we should use char array, how long should we reserve for buffer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore I suggest that we introduce a describe() function in
>>>>>>> LogOutput as part of this change, and move the code currently in
>>>>>>> LogConfiguration::describe to this function, adding the option
>>>>>>> text to it as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this is refactoring of LogOutput and LogConfiguration.
>>>>>> Now (after FC date), is this work accepted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, refactoring is another enhancement from this.
>>>>>> If it is needed, I think this enhancement should be started after
>>>>>> refactoring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If refactoring and this enhancement can be merged and be accepted,
>>>>>> I will start to work for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016/06/28 20:23, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/28/2016 11:29 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>> PING: Could you review and sponsor it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.05/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't really like that we need to make dynamic allocations
>>>>>>> here. I would prefer to have the outputs be responsible for
>>>>>>> describing themselves just like David mentions. The current
>>>>>>> design of LogConfiguration::describe doesn't follow that pattern,
>>>>>>> but I really think it should. Therefore I suggest that we
>>>>>>> introduce a describe() function in LogOutput as part of this
>>>>>>> change, and move the code currently in LogConfiguration::describe
>>>>>>> to this function, adding the option text to it as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've requested FC extension for this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016/06/13 13:24, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/2016 1:45 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So options are a distinct property of outputs and so should
>>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>>> a first class entity in LogOutput all along.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree to you.
>>>>>>>>>> But I think we need to discuss about it with logging folks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I uploaded a new webrev. It removes fixed buffer length and
>>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>>> order of output.
>>>>>>>>>> Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.05/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's okay to wait and hear what opinions others may have before
>>>>>>>>> changing things based on my comments. :) The fixed buffer may
>>>>>>>>> be okay - as I said I don't know what the potential options
>>>>>>>>> are, so don't know if it is okay or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Using dynamic allocation avoids that but raises other concerns
>>>>>>>>> - like calling vm_exit_on_out_of_memory on failure; or whether
>>>>>>>>> to use malloc or resource area?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lets wait for other feedback before going further.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/06/13 9:05, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/2016 9:30 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think "config_string" is different from "option_string".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Xlog format (from -Xlog:help message):
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Xlog[:[what][:[output][:[decorators][:output-options]]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> config_string: "what" (ex. gc=trace)
>>>>>>>>>>>> option_string: "output-options" (ex. filecount=5)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, LogOutput handles tags and loglevels only as
>>>>>>>>>>>> config_string.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not contain output options.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay I'm starting to see the bigger picture here. In terms of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> overall logging configuration we might have, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> gc=trace -> stdout
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime=info -> fileA
>>>>>>>>>>> compiler=trace -> fileB
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> where the LHS is (part of) the configuration, and the RHS is the
>>>>>>>>>>> output. So for each output we set its "configuration" to the
>>>>>>>>>>> associated LHS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So options are a distinct property of outputs and so should
>>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>>> a first class entity in LogOutput all along.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay so looking at your v4 I have two comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First, hard-wiring OPTIONS_LEN. I don't know what the
>>>>>>>>>>> possible options
>>>>>>>>>>> are so don't know if 100 is adequate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Second, if the logging syntax is:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Xlog[:[what][:[output][:[decorators][:output-options]]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> then shouldn't the configuration be printed in the same
>>>>>>>>>>> order/format?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/06/13 8:14, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2016 11:10 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there some reason the option string could not simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing configuration string?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My first proposal keeps option string at LogOutput and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (See webrev.01).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marcus commented that option string should be generated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I uploaded new webrev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.04/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry but I repeat my question - why is the option
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply part of the config_string?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/06/12 6:44, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry but this API seems poorly fitting to me. First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> print_option_string seems the wrong name given that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> base class,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LogOutput, has no notion of having an "option string". It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a supposedly generic "print other stuff" function that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only one class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually needs to implement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly it inverts the style of the API used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have getters for all the other "properties" which are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then printed by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the describe_current_configuration method. But this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "print" function where we ask the target to print
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself. Mixing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two styles seems messy. It probably would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a print-style API from the start - then adding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options would have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been a trivial extension for those output classes with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition the change you made to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe_current_configuration is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all general purpose - you wanted a given format
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (print between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the config string and the decorators) for this one class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added the code to support that format. But that format
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may not make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense for other classes that might have "extra stuff" to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> print.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there some reason the option string could not simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing configuration string? It seems to me that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a LogFile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these "options" really are part of the configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS. The two hpp files would need their copyright years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "2015, 2016,".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/06/2016 10:30 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PING: Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need a second reviewer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.03/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This change is small fix, and it helps us to confirm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FileLogOutput configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I want to merge it to jdk 9.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/05/17 19:17, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PING: Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.03/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/05/10 8:06, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need a second reviewer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.03/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/05/04 23:38, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/2016 04:12 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 93 out->print("filecount=%u,filesize=" SIZE_FORMAT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "%s ",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _file_count, byte_size_in_proper_unit(_rotate_size),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper_unit_for_byte_size(_rotate_size));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, I applied it to new webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.03/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/05/04 22:35, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/2016 02:59 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.02/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks better. The format for _rotate_size should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIZE_FORMAT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While we're at it I think it would be good (as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a proper unit for the filesize. Basically changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 93 out->print("filecount=%u,filesize=%lu ",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _file_count,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _rotate_size);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 93 out->print("filecount=%u,filesize=" SIZE_FORMAT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "%s ",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _file_count, byte_size_in_proper_unit(_rotate_size),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper_unit_for_byte_size(_rotate_size));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I fixed to use _rotate_size and _file_count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VM.log list jcmd.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not store option string, and I added new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> print
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review it again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/05/04 18:33, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2016 01:43 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PING: Could you review and sponsor it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would prefer to generate the option string from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options rather than saving the string from when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configured. This would also produce/print the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outputs that are using the defaults (which is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The filesize option could then use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> byte_size_in_proper_unit and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper_unit_for_byte_size to make it easier to read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, get_option_string() should just be called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option_string().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch makes to show option string of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LogFileOutput.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/19 22:55, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I adapted changes to jdk9/hs/hotspot repos.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/18 23:09, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PING:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've sent review request for JDK-8153074.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this patch is merged, user can confirm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VM.log jcmd.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and sponsor it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/11 18:29, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PING: Could you review and sponsor it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/03/31 22:35, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CC'ed to serviceability-dev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/03/30 23:09, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This request review is related to [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to see output option (filecount,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filesize) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VM.log jcmd.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output sample:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #2: gc.log gc=trace,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filecount=5,filesize=1048576
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,level,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I uploaded webrev. Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153074/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot access JPRT. So I need a sponsor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2016-March/018704.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list