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

Marcus Larsson marcus.larsson at oracle.com
Thu Jun 30 13:10:21 UTC 2016 

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

More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list