RFR(10)(XS) 8177015: STACK_SIZE_MINIMUM of 32k is not always enough for Mac OS X

[David Holmes]

Thanks Chris. All good to go.

David

On 27/03/2017 3:55 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 3/26/17 5:06 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 25/03/2017 6:12 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Please review changes for the following:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8177015/webrev.00/
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177015
>>
>> Functional change seems okay, though I do have to wonder why we see
>> such variance in behaviour on different OS X systems
> Newer version of OS X I believe. It worked fine for months. Seems 100%
> reproducible on certain systems now.
>>
>>> The CR description explains the problem. I'm increasing the minimum
>>> allowed -Xss stack size from 32k to 64k. There are also a couple of
>>> tests that were testing for -Xss32k that I updated to 64k. I also added
>>
>>  hotspot/test/runtime/Thread/TooSmallStackSize.java
>>
>> Don't understand why you bumped the 32K to 64K in this test as they
>> seem unrelated to -Xss flag ??
> I considered not doing this change, but wanted to keep the test in sync
> with the jdk test it was originally based on. There is some relation to
> -Xss here in that  -Xss impacts ThreadStackSize, although I don't
> believe the other way around (if you set ThreadStackSize, I don't think
> it impacts the main thread). In any case, the 32k for all the thread
> stack size testing done here (including VM and Compiler) was replicated
> from the JDK test. I'm not sure there's that much importance to this
> size, other than to set it small enough so an error message with the
> minimum allowed stack size will be generated (although that could also
> be done with the 16k size that is already being tested for).
>>
>>> a new test case for 253k. This is something I intended to do for
>>
>> I see no new test for 253K. I see one for 513K in the launcher test.
> Sorry, that was a typo in my email. Should have said 513k.
>
> thanks,
>
> Chris
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>> JDK-8176768, but forgot to include the change in the review. It's not
>>> really related to this CR, but I figured I'd drop it in since I'm making
>>> other changes to the file.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>
>