PING: RFR: JDK-8153074: UL: Show output option in VM.log jcmd
Marcus Larsson
marcus.larsson at oracle.com
Thu Jun 30 09:38:33 UTC 2016
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 serviceability-dev
mailing list