On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:46:35 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The socket read/write JFR events currently use instrumentation of java.base
>> code using templates in the jdk.jfr modules. This results in some java.base
>> code residing in the jdk.jfr module which is undesirable.
>>
>> JDK19 added static support for event classes. The old instrumentor classes
>> should be replaced with mirror events using the static support.
>>
>> In the java.base module:
>> Added two new events, jdk.internal.event.SocketReadEvent and
>> jdk.internal.event.SocketWriteEvent.
>> java.net.Socket and sun.nio.ch.SocketChannelImpl were changed to make use of
>> the new events.
>>
>> In the jdk.jfr module:
>> jdk.jfr.events.SocketReadEvent and jdk.jfr.events.SocketWriteEvent were
>> changed to be mirror events.
>> In the package jdk.jfr.internal.instrument, the classes
>> SocketChannelImplInstrumentor, SocketInputStreamInstrumentor, and
>> SocketOutputStreamInstrumentor were removed. The JDKEvents class was updated
>> to reflect all of those changes.
>>
>> The existing tests in test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/io continue to pass with the
>> new implementation:
>> Passed: jdk/jfr/event/io/TestSocketChannelEvents.java
>> Passed: jdk/jfr/event/io/TestSocketEvents.java
>>
>> I added a micro benchmark which measures the overhead of handling the jfr
>> socket events.
>> test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/net/SocketEventOverhead.java.
>> It needs access the jdk.internal.event package, which is done at runtime
>> with annotations that add the extra arguments.
>> At compile time the build arguments had to be augmented in
>> make/test/BuildMicrobenchmark.gmk
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/Socket.java line 1114:
>
>> 1112: }
>> 1113:
>> 1114: private int read0(byte[] b, int off, int len) throws
>> IOException {
>
> Can you rename this to implRead?
Are we using a convention of `implRead` or `readImpl`? Either is ok with me,
but I think we had been using `readImpl` and similar elsewhere.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14342#discussion_r1237316630
