RFR (M) 8198720: Obsolete PrintSafepointStatistics, PrintSafepointStatisticsTimeout and PrintSafepointStatisticsCount options

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

Hi Aleksey,

I rewrote the logging to use UL and to keep the old format:  see 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/gc.log
It does shift when the time in the logging adds another digit.  I don't 
know how to fix that.   Does this look ok otherwise?

thanks,
Coleen


On 7/9/18 5:42 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/18 4:08 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Most latency-savvy folks "out there" run with some sort of 
>> safepointing profiling, which in many
>> cases include PrintSafepointStatistics tables.
>
> That was the original reason I was looking at this logging.  I think 
> the trouble with the times is that they are ms and mostly zero.  I 
> wonder if MILLIUNITS would be better for these times:
>
>              (int64_t)(sstats->_time_to_spin / MICROUNITS),
>              (int64_t)(sstats->_time_to_wait_to_block / MICROUNITS),
>              (int64_t)(sstats->_time_to_sync / MICROUNITS),
>              (int64_t)(sstats->_time_to_do_cleanups / MICROUNITS),
>              (int64_t)(sstats->_time_to_exec_vmop / MICROUNITS));   <= 
> this has nonzero values for GC pauses
>
> What do you think?
>
> thanks,
> Coleen
>>
>> -Aleksey
>>
>> On 07/09/2018 08:35 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>> Okay, somehow the columns of numbers didn't look very useful on my 
>>> screen to me, and I wanted to
>>> convert this to UL (and straighten out the logic), so that's why I 
>>> made this change.   I asked
>>> around internally to see which people would care about the format 
>>> change and didn't find anyone
>>> specific.  Now I know!
>>>
>>> Let me rework this to use UL but keep the table.
>>>
>>> I'll withdraw this change for now.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the quick feedback.
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>> On 7/9/18 1:58 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>> On 07/09/2018 07:48 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> Summary: Convert PrintSafepointStatistics to UL
>>>>>
>>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8198720.01/webrev
>>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198720
>>>> The synopsis is misleading: it is not only obsoleting 
>>>> PrintSafepoint* options, it also reformats the
>>>> output!
>>>>
>>>> We did JDK-8180482 not that long ago, and the reason was that both 
>>>> people and machine tools are
>>>> accustomed to the particular non-noisy format for that table. I am 
>>>> not at all convinced that
>>>> proposed format [2] is better than current version [3]. Can we keep 
>>>> (at least some resemblance of)
>>>> the old format, please?
>>>>
>>>> -Aleksey
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180482
>>>> [2] 
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/attachment/75330/out.safepoint-logging
>>>> [3] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8180482/after.txt
>>>>
>>
>