Request for review (S): 7161545: G1: Minor cleanups to the G1 logging

[Jesper Wilhelmsson]

Looks good. Ship it!
/Jesper

On 2012-05-14 13:32, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I still only have one reviewer (Thanks John Cu!) for this change. Anyone else
> feel like taking a look?
>
> Bengt
>
>
> On 2012-04-26 23:47, John Cuthbertson wrote:
>> Hi Bengt,
>>
>> Thanks for making the changes - looks good to me. And converting
>> no_of_workers etc to an unsigned as a separate CR is fine.
>>
>> JohnC
>>
>> On 04/25/12 05:42, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking at this!
>>>
>>> Here's an updated webrev based on your comments:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/7161545/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> I did not fix all of your comment. See my comments inline.
>>>
>>> On 2012-04-24 01:36, John Cuthbertson wrote:
>>>> Hi Bengt,
>>>>
>>>> This looks good to me. A couple of suggestions for your consideration:
>>>>
>>>> * Looking at the code, it occurred to me that
>>>> G1CollectorPolicy::print_par_stats() and
>>>> G1CollectorPolicy::print_par_sizes() are very similar. If you passed the
>>>> format string in as a parameter and permitted the order in
>>>> print_par_sizes() to match that in print_par_stats() (which it probably
>>>> should) then they could be coalesced into a single routine (or a base
>>>> routine and two callers).
>>>
>>> It is not really enough to just pass the format string since we also need
>>> to cast the values. Also, it is kind of strange to me to have the format
>>> string specified in one place and passing values to it in another place.
>>>
>>> However, you are definitely correct about the code duplication. I tried a
>>> different solution and added a parameter to the print_par_stats() to allow
>>> it to choose between the two format strings. What do you think about that?
>>>
>>>> * Did you consider extending the current version of
>>>> G1CollectorPolicy::print_stats() to take an additional, optional (with a
>>>> default value of NULL) extra_info parameter?
>>>
>>> Don't think this adds much value. The print_stats() methods are one liners
>>> so I don't think the code would be much simpler by doing this.
>>>
>>>> * Shouldn't 'workers' be an unsigned? Simlarly for no_of_gc_threads
>>>> (parameter and field of G1CollectorPolicy), and active_workers at the call
>>>> site of G1CollectorPolicy::record_collection_pause_end()?
>>>
>>> You are right, but g1CollectorPolicy is full of "int workers" so I don't
>>> think we should change that as part of this checkin. Should I file a
>>> separate CR to change all occurrences of "int workers" to "uint workers" in
>>> g1CollectorPolicy?
>>>
>>>> * Did you consider templatizing bytesize_in_proper_unit()?
>>>
>>> Good idea! I did that.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for looking at this!
>>> Bengt
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> JohnC
>>>>
>>>> On 04/16/12 02:32, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I have a couple of reviews for this?
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/7161545/webrev.00
>>>>>
>>>>> This includes four minor cleanups of the G1 logging:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Rename "to-space-overflow" to "to-space-exhausted"
>>>>> * Introduce one decimal point in the size format
>>>>> * Add Sum to the aggregate and re-order the entries
>>>>> * Add number of GC workers to the log output
>>>>>
>>>>> I also added gigabyte conversion to proper_unit_for_byte_size() and
>>>>> byte_size_in_proper_unit(). I hope that makes sense. It is not strictly
>>>>> necessary for this change, but I think it makes sense. I'm fine with
>>>>> leaving it out or pushing it as a separate change.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After the change logging on the finest level will look like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> [GC pause (young), 0.00447433 secs]
>>>>> [Parallel Time: 3.3 ms, GC Workers: 4]
>>>>> [GC Worker Start (ms): 31098.2 31098.2 31098.3 31098.3
>>>>> Min: 31098.2, Avg: 31098.2, Max: 31098.3, Diff: 0.1, Sum: 124392.9]
>>>>> [Ext Root Scanning (ms): 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.5
>>>>> Min: 2.0, Avg: 2.3, Max: 2.5, Diff: 0.6, Sum: 9.1]
>>>>> [Update RS (ms): 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0
>>>>> Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.1, Max: 0.3, Diff: 0.3, Sum: 0.5]
>>>>> [Processed Buffers : 1 0 4 0
>>>>> Sum: 5, Avg: 1, Min: 0, Max: 4, Diff: 4]
>>>>> [Scan RS (ms): 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
>>>>> Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.1, Max: 0.2, Diff: 0.2, Sum: 0.3]
>>>>> [Object Copy (ms): 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5
>>>>> Min: 0.5, Avg: 0.6, Max: 0.7, Diff: 0.2, Sum: 2.5]
>>>>> [Termination (ms): 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
>>>>> Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.0, Max: 0.0, Diff: 0.0, Sum: 0.0]
>>>>> [Termination Attempts : 1 1 1 1
>>>>> Sum: 4, Avg: 1, Min: 1, Max: 1, Diff: 0]
>>>>> [GC Worker Other (ms): 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
>>>>> Min: 0.0, Avg: 0.1, Max: 0.1, Diff: 0.0, Sum: 0.2]
>>>>> [GC Worker Total (ms): 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1
>>>>> Min: 3.1, Avg: 3.2, Max: 3.2, Diff: 0.1, Sum: 12.7]
>>>>> [GC Worker End (ms): 31101.4 31101.4 31101.4 31101.4
>>>>> Min: 31101.4, Avg: 31101.4, Max: 31101.4, Diff: 0.0, Sum: 124405.6]
>>>>> [Code Root Fixup: 0.0 ms]
>>>>> [Clear CT: 0.1 ms]
>>>>> [Cur Clear CC: 0.0 ms]
>>>>> [Cum Clear CC: 0.1 ms]
>>>>> [Min Clear CC: 0.0 ms]
>>>>> [Max Clear CC: 0.0 ms]
>>>>> [Avg Clear CC: 0.0 ms]
>>>>> [Other: 1.1 ms]
>>>>> [Choose CSet: 0.0 ms]
>>>>> [Ref Proc: 0.1 ms]
>>>>> [Ref Enq: 0.0 ms]
>>>>> [Free CSet: 0.6 ms]
>>>>> [Eden: 79.0M(79.0M)->0.0B(79.0M) Survivors: 1024.0K->1024.0K Heap:
>>>>> 80.2M(100.0M)->1261.0K(100.0M)]
>>>>> [Times: user=0.06 sys=0.00, real=0.04 secs]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Bengt
>>>>
>>>
>>
>