PING: RFR: JDK-8153073: UL: Set filesize option with k/m/g
Yasumasa Suenaga
yasuenag at gmail.com
Tue May 3 14:05:33 UTC 2016
Hi Marcus,
> That's good, but then we shouldn't limit it to SIZE_MAX. The overflow check in logFileOutput.cpp should be removed.
In Linux 32 bits system, we cannot open > 4GB size file because we do not pass O_LARGEFILE.
(we use fopen(3))
In manpage [1], we should use _FILE_OFFSET_BITS rather than O_LARGEFILE.
However, makefiles for Linux, this macro is used for ostream.cpp only.
Thus I think we should keep the limit of SIZE_MAX for LogFileOutput.
>>>> the question for the UL owners is whether the change in semantics is appropriate: previously the filesize was interpreted as a value in KB, whereas now, without a suffix, it is just bytes.
>>
>> Is it no problem?
>
> No I don't think that's a problem.
Thanks!
Yasumasa
[1] http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/open.2.html
On 2016/05/03 22:55, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>
>
> On 05/03/2016 03:49 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>> This seems broken to me, we're passing &_rotate_size (a size_t*) to atojulong() which takes a julong*. If sizeof(julong) > sizeof(size_t) then that's a problem, no?
>>
>> Thanks, Marcus!
>> I changed type of _rotate_size and _current_size to julong in new webrev:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.05/
>
> That's good, but then we shouldn't limit it to SIZE_MAX. The overflow check in logFileOutput.cpp should be removed.
>
>>
>>>> the question for the UL owners is whether the change in semantics is appropriate: previously the filesize was interpreted as a value in KB, whereas now, without a suffix, it is just bytes.
>>
>> Is it no problem?
>
> No I don't think that's a problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Yasumasa
>>
>>
>> On 2016/05/03 21:41, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2016 02:25 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Adding in the runtime team as they now own UL.
>>>>
>>>> I've reviewed the change from a coding perspective - the question for the UL owners is whether the change in semantics is appropriate: previously the filesize was interpreted as a value in KB, whereas now, without a suffix, it is just bytes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 3/05/2016 9:44 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>> PING: Could you review and sponsor it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.04/
>>>
>>> This seems broken to me, we're passing &_rotate_size (a size_t*) to atojulong() which takes a julong*. If sizeof(julong) > sizeof(size_t) then that's a problem, no?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/04/21 18:37, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it just registered with me that currently filesize is interpreted
>>>>>>> as a value in KB. With this change it will be in bytes - that means
>>>>>>> tests will need fixing eg:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hotspot/test/serviceability/logging/TestLogRotation.java
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> I've fixed it in new webrev:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.04/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following jtreg tests are passed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - hotspot/test/gc/logging
>>>>>> - hotspot/test/runtime/logging
>>>>>> - hotspot/test/serviceability/logging
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016/04/21 14:43, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2016 7:15 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... on 32-bit size_t and julong are not the same size so we would
>>>>>>>>> still need to ensure we don't specify a filesize that is greater than
>>>>>>>>> SIZE_MAX on 32-bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh... I understood.
>>>>>>>> I've fixed and uploaded new webrev. Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.03/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it just registered with me that currently filesize is interpreted
>>>>>>> as a value in KB. With this change it will be in bytes - that means
>>>>>>> tests will need fixing eg:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hotspot/test/serviceability/logging/TestLogRotation.java
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That change in semantics may not be desirable, but I'll leave that to
>>>>>>> the owners of this code to decide (and I hope they jump in soon!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I note that in the existing range check:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (value == SIZE_MAX || value > SIZE_MAX / K) {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the first clause is redundant. So your change seems okay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016/04/20 15:04, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2016 3:25 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > You still removed the size bounds checks:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > 190 size_t value = parse_value(value_str);
>>>>>>>>>> > 191 if (value == SIZE_MAX || value > SIZE_MAX / K) {
>>>>>>>>>> > 192 errstream->print_cr("Invalid option: %s must be in
>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>> [0, "
>>>>>>>>>> > 193 SIZE_FORMAT "]",
>>>>>>>>>> FileSizeOptionKey,
>>>>>>>>>> SIZE_MAX / K);
>>>>>>>>>> > 194 success = false;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SIZE_MAX is defined as ULONG_MAX in stdint.h [1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah I hadn't realized this was an external value, I thought it was some
>>>>>>>>> internally enforced maximum file size limit. So this is just an
>>>>>>>>> overflow check really, and ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Arguments::atojulong(atomull) checks value range [2].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... we already do an overflow check in here, but ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus I do not think we do not need to check value range in
>>>>>>>>>> LogFileOutput::parse_options().
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... on 32-bit size_t and julong are not the same size so we would
>>>>>>>>> still need to ensure we don't specify a filesize that is greater than
>>>>>>>>> SIZE_MAX on 32-bit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks, I had missed that example usage buried in there, but am
>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>> > surprised none of these "options" for the handling the file are
>>>>>>>>>> > explicitly documented.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not know how we can documented about it.
>>>>>>>>>> (Is it internal process in Oracle?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I just meant that amongst all that help text you already modified,
>>>>>>>>> there is nothing, that I could see, that actually describes the
>>>>>>>>> possible options for filesize.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can help for it if I can
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/generic/stdint.h;h=442762728b899aa8ec219299692fce5953d796b0;hb=HEAD#l259
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs/hotspot/file/8005261869c9/src/share/vm/runtime/arguments.cpp#l804
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2016/04/20 11:24 "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2016 11:50 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Thank you for your comment.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > I uploaded new webrev. Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.02/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You still removed the size bounds checks:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 190 size_t value = parse_value(value_str);
>>>>>>>>>> 191 if (value == SIZE_MAX || value > SIZE_MAX / K) {
>>>>>>>>>> 192 errstream->print_cr("Invalid option: %s must be in
>>>>>>>>>> range [0, "
>>>>>>>>>> 193 SIZE_FORMAT "]",
>>>>>>>>>> FileSizeOptionKey,
>>>>>>>>>> SIZE_MAX / K);
>>>>>>>>>> 194 success = false;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Which makes me wonder if atomull needs renaming - does the
>>>>>>>>>> "m" mean
>>>>>>>>>> >> memory? atojulong would seem more appropriate regardless.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > I renamed to atojulong() in new webrev.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> Not directly related to your change but I was surprised
>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>> >> various log file options don't seem to be documented anywhere
>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>> >> -Xlog:help output.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > I updated help message in new webrev.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, I had missed that example usage buried in there, but am
>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>> surprised none of these "options" for the handling the file are
>>>>>>>>>> explicitly documented.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > On 2016/04/19 10:14, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi Yasumasa,
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On 19/04/2016 12:06 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>> PING:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> I've sent review request for JDK-8153073.
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> If this patch is merged, user can set logfile size with
>>>>>>>>>> k/m/g.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Your webrev seems out of date with respect to the current
>>>>>>>>>> code - the
>>>>>>>>>> >> logfile size processing is done in
>>>>>>>>>> LogFileOutput::parse_options not
>>>>>>>>>> >> configure_rotation. And of course you now need to work with
>>>>>>>>>> jdk9/hs not
>>>>>>>>>> >> hs-rt.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> That aside:
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> src/share/vm/runtime/arguments.cpp
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I don't think you need to add the Arguments:: to the atomull
>>>>>>>>>> calls when
>>>>>>>>>> >> you are executing in Arguments code - lines 2643, 2660
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> This comment could be updated to delete "memory"
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> 788 // Parses a memory size specification string.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Which makes me wonder if atomull needs renaming - does the
>>>>>>>>>> "m" mean
>>>>>>>>>> >> memory? atojulong would seem more appropriate regardless.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> ---
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> src/share/vm/logging/logFileOutput.cpp
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> You removed the size checking logic.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Not directly related to your change but I was surprised
>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>> >> various log file options don't seem to be documented anywhere
>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>> >> -Xlog:help output.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> >> David
>>>>>>>>>> >> -----
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Please review it.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> On 2016/04/11 18:28, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> PING: Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> We need more reviewer.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> On 2016/03/31 22:33, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> CC'ed to serviceability-dev.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On 2016/03/31 18:24, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're missing an include of arguments.hpp in
>>>>>>>>>> logFileOutput.cpp.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> arguments.hpp is included in precompiled.hpp . So
>>>>>>>>>> build was
>>>>>>>>>> succeeded.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> However, it should be included in logFileOutput.cpp .
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> I uploaded a new webrev. Could you review again?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Yasumasa
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On 2016/03/31 16:48, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 03/30/2016 04:09 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This request review is related to [1].
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I want to set filesize option with k/m/g as below:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Xlog:gc=trace:file=gc.log:time:filecount=5,filesize=10m
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Memory size option (e.g. -Xmx) can be set with k/m/g .
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we can use option parser in arguments.cpp .
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I uploaded webrev. Could you review it?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8153073/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're missing an include of arguments.hpp in
>>>>>>>>>> logFileOutput.cpp.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apart from that, this looks good to me.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list