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

Yasumasa Suenaga yasuenag at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 03:53:35 UTC 2016


2016/06/22 9:48 "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com>:
>
> On 22/06/2016 9:37 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>
>> PING: Could you review it?
>> BTW, should I  add jdk9-fc-request label to JBS?
>
>
> Yes this enhancement will need approval. Please add the label and other
information as outlined here:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2016-June/004443.html

Thanks! I added.

Yasumasa

> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Yasumasa
>>
>> 2016/06/13 13:24 "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com
>> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>:
>>
>>
>>     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