PING: RFR: JDK-8153074: UL: Show output option in VM.log jcmd

Fri Jul 1 03:16:07 UTC 2016

Thanks David!
I'm waiting to approve FC extension request.

Marcus, David, could you be a sponsor for this?

Yasumasa
2016/07/01 11:22 "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com>:

> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>