RFR(xs): 8213834: JVMTI ResourceExhausted should not be posted in CompilerThread

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Hi David,


On 11/22/18 00:12, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Serguei,
>
> Must be a mail system issue. This is the reply I wrote in response to 
> the two replies you had attached:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2018-November/025927.html

In fact, I saw this reply from you.
Sorry for confusion.
I need to catch up on all the emails on this topic and will post my reply.
Sorry for long silence, we have the Holidays in US.


Thanks,
Serguei

>
> "Hi Dan, Serguei,
>
> I'm going to combine my response to you both into one as it's the same
> discussion ..."
>
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> On 22/11/2018 6:06 pm, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>> On 11/21/18 23:42, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/11/2018 5:36 pm, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>>> Hi JC,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:03 PM JC Beyler <jcbeyler at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> I actually agree with not using the service thread to be honest, 
>>>>> resource exhaustion seems to be something you'd want to know 
>>>>> sooner than later.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about we do both?
>>>>>    - Fix it now so that the compiler thread does not post the 
>>>>> event because we'd rather not have crashes and that can get 
>>>>> backported
>>>>>    - Put out a RFE that would add the information to ThreadInfo 
>>>>> and work through the process of a CSR/etc. to get it working for 
>>>>> future versions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense, sure. But both Dan and Serguei voiced opposition to this
>>>> patch. Dan, Serguei, what do you think?
>>>
>>> I note neither Dan nor Serguei responded to my response to them :
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I guess, it is again some issue with the mailing system.
>> Please, find my and Dan's replies to your email in the attachments.
>>
>> I'm still thinking about what would be a better choice here.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Serguei
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>> -----
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we do not find an agreement, I would rather close this bug as WNF
>>>> than push it in without consensus. I would then just fix it downstream
>>>> in our port.
>>>>
>>>> Your proposed RFE would still make sense, but not in jdk12 anymore,
>>>> let alone in older releases.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Thomas
>>>>
>>