PING: RFR: JDK-8153074: UL: Show output option in VM.log jcmd
Yasumasa Suenaga
yasuenag at gmail.com
Thu Jun 30 13:13:54 UTC 2016
Hi Marcus,
> Looks good, thanks for fixing this.
Thanks!
I'm waiting a second reviewer and accepting FC extension request.
Yasumasa
On 2016/06/30 22:10, Marcus Larsson wrote:
> 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