The cc's are going dropped unfortunately - adding by serviceability.
On 21/01/2016 1:19 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi,
On 01/20/2016 03:09 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi David,
I read an old description; I was expecting the value of the property
to be the stack size for the reaper.
That would allow more control and less waste when it needed to be
overridden.
Set it to zero if the default size is desired.
Roger
Wouldn't it be more appropriate that for modest use there would be no
need to specify a system property. By modest use, I mean starting just a
few sub-processes. So if we add 32k (or whatever the max. possible
overhead of TLS is) to the existing 32k, that should be the default for
reaper thread. If one needs to make it even smaller to accommodate for
exceptional use, he can then use this new system property.
There is no reasonable "max possible" - the 32K is from the current
problem that needs to be solved. But simply adding 32K today doesn't
help if the third-part-library increases it's TLS use to 33K next week.
We need a means for the person running the JVM to expand the stack size
of the reaper thread if they hit this TLS-based problem. A flag that
says "use the Java Thread default" suffices because the Java stack size
can be further adjusted if even its default is not enough.
Or we could just say forget about trying to manage this one thread's
stack and let it behave like a normal Java thread. Might be the simplest
solution by far. As Martin said he was just trying to be a good citizen
with limiting the potential memory use.
Cheers,
David
Regards, Peter
On 1/20/2016 12:05 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 20/01/2016 8:39 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 20/01/2016 12:50 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
How about "jdk.process.reaperStackSize".
Based on some internal discussion that seems appropriate to me ...
Except of course that the property is just a boolean not a size. :)
So jdk.process.reaperUsesdefaultStackSize seems appropriate.
David
It will need a CCC .
... and if not then the CCC will show the way. :)
Thanks,
David
Roger
On 1/19/16 7:10 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 19/01/2016 9:53 PM, Kevin Walls wrote:
|
Hi Cheleswer, I think Martin is suggesting something like:
|
// Use a modest stack size, unless requested otherwise:
long stackSize =
Boolean.getBoolean("processReaperUseDefaultStackSize") ? 0 : 32768;
Someone from core-libs needs to chime on what the appropriate
namespace for such a property would be.
David
-----
Thread t = new Thread(systemThreadGroup, grimReaper, "process
reaper", stackSize);
|||
If that tests OK for you, it may be the way we can go ahead with the
point fix for this.
Regards
Kevin
|
On 18/01/2016 16:52, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Historical note - I never liked having a reaper thread for each
subprocess, but no other reliable implementation is known. Given
the
potential for many reaper threads, I at least wanted to keep the
memory waste low.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, cheleswer sahu
<cheleswer.s...@oracle.com> wrote:
+ Thread t = null;
+ if
(Boolean.getBoolean("processReaperUseDefaultStackSize")) {
+ t = new Thread(systemThreadGroup,
grimReaper,
"process reaper");
+ } else {
+ // Our thread stack requirement is quite
modest.
+ t = new Thread(systemThreadGroup,
grimReaper,
"process reaper", 32768);
+ }
If we do end up using this strategy, cleaner would be to use
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#Thread-java.lang.ThreadGroup-java.lang.Runnable-java.lang.String-long-
stackSize - the desired stack size for the new thread, or zero to
indicate that this parameter is to be ignored.
