I put debug printing into test_ti_instrum.c and attached it to JIRA.
Could you run it on your machine and send me console output.
Evgueni
On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
>
> test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at
> test_ti_instrum.c:80
>
> geir
>
> On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
>
> > While running cunit on Linux it turned out one test case
fails some
> > time. The fix is in tests.final.2.patch.
> >
> > So the last versions to be committed:
> > invocation_api.final.patch
> > build.final.2.patch
> > tests.final.2.patch
> >
> > Evgueni
> >
> >
> > On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I mahaged to resolve the problem on Linux.... will update
> >> build.final.patch with build.final.2.patch in a while
> >>
> >> On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Oh! Ooh! I did that..... I passed cunit, somke, kernel
tests on
> >> > Windows and smoke, kernel tests on Linux. Unfortunately I
failed to
> >> > link cunit tests on Linux so far. So I disabled cunit on
Linux
> >> until
> >> > the problem is solved. I believe it is acceptable as short
term
> >> > solution. I found several problems in cunit tests. I will
come
> >> up with
> >> > my findings later (not today).
> >> >
> >> > Use latest patches from HARMONY-1582. They are marked as
final.
> >> There
> >> > are three patches. One for build module, one for cunit
tests and
> >> one
> >> > for VM itself.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Evgueni
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 10/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > Nooooooo! LOL
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm here waiting - This will unblock a whole bunch of
things :)
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for the effort
> >> > >
> >> > > Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
> >> > > > Geir,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That's terrible. We have power outage....servers are
down. I
> >> can't
> >> > > > send the patches now.... will do it tomorrow
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Evgueni
> >> > > > On 10/5/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> woo hoo! here we go...
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
> >> > > >> > Hi Evgueni,
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> Hi All,
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should
> >> resolve remain
> >> > > >> >> concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Thanks for updating the patch! I agree it it can be
> >> committed, at
> >> > > >> > least signatures look good. 5 revisions seem like more
> >> than enough :).
> >> > > >> > Anyways, I think the remaining issues can be resolved
> >> with additional
> >> > > >> > patches. Thanks again for the good work and your
patience.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > Andrey.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> Thanks
> >> > > >> >> Evgueni
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > Andrey,
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > I see your points. I think both approaches have
> >> advantages and
> >> > > >> >> > disadvantages. I think it is quite hard to say
which
> >> approach is
> >> > > >> >> > better until we play with one VM only. I still feel
> >> like introducing
> >> > > >> >> > one more dependence is better than spreading code
> >> which deals with
> >> > > >> >> > attachment among VM and TM. We really get stuck.
OK,
> >> just because I
> >> > > >> >> > want to move forward I will do required changes
to remove
> >> > > >> >> > vm_create_jthread from TM. I believe that will
resolve
> >> all our
> >> > > >> >> > disagreements and the patch will be applied soon.
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > Thanks
> >> > > >> >> > Evgueni.
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > On 10/4/06, Andrey Chernyshev
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > On 10/3/06, Evgueni Brevnov
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > On 10/3/06, Andrey Chernyshev
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Just to be clear.... I agree with you it
is more
> >> > > >> convenient if
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of
JavaVM. It
> >> > > >> reflects that
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > current thread has been attached
already. Do
> >> you think it
> >> > > >> >> makes sense
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > to get rid of JNIEnv and use
> >> jthread_get_JNI_env in that
> >> > > >> case?
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > The jthread_* layer is designed like if it
were
> >> a regular JNI
> >> > > >> >> > > > > application which is meant to be called
from the
> >> Java code,
> >> > > >> hence
> >> > > >> >> > > > > every function on that layer receives
JNIenv. We
> >> can probably
> >> > > >> >> get rid
> >> > > >> >> > > > > of the JNEnv parameter for jthread_*
functions,
> >> assuming that
> >> > > >> >> TM can
> >> > > >> >> > > > > always extract JNIenv for the current
thread with
> >> > > >> >> > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env().
> >> > > >> >> > > > > My only concern would be the performance
- once
> >> the JNIenv is
> >> > > >> >> already
> >> > > >> >> > > > > known for the native part of the kernel
classes
> >> impl, it
> >> > > >> must be
> >> > > >> >> > > > > cheaper to pass JNIEnv to TM as an extra
> >> parameter rather than
> >> > > >> >> extract
> >> > > >> >> > > > > it from the TLS again.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Other than that, I see no strong
advantages in
> >> keeping JNIEnv
> >> > > >> >> parameter.
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Regarding jthread_attach. I still didn't
get
> >> your point....
> >> > > >> >> Clarify it
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > please if you think jhread_attach should be
> >> modified.
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Sorry for being not clear: I think for
> >> jthread_attach, we have
> >> > > >> >> two options:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > 1) Make JNIEnv input parameter - it must
be new
> >> JNIEnv that VM
> >> > > >> >> > > > > pre-allocates for the new Java thread.
> >> jthread_attach
> >> > > >> would just
> >> > > >> >> > > > > associate it with the current thread.
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > 2) Obtain JNIEnv via vm_attach() callback. In
> >> this case, if
> >> > > >> >> > > > > vm_attach() callback implementation needs to
> >> know for which
> >> > > >> >> JavaVM new
> >> > > >> >> > > > > JNIenv has to be allocated, then we'll
need to
> >> add JavaVM as
> >> > > >> >> input
> >> > > >> >> > > > > parameter for jthread_attach().
> >> > > >> >> > > > > I think both options should be fine, (1)
would
> >> probably
> >> > > >> keep TM
> >> > > >> >> > > > > interface a bit lighter, though (2) may look
> >> more closer to
> >> > > >> >> the JNI
> >> > > >> >> > > > > invocation API idea.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > So I think adding JavaVM specifically for
> >> jthread_attach
> >> > > >> may make
> >> > > >> >> > > > > sense given the explanation you provided
earlier.
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > The concern I would have regarding the
proposed
> >> jthread_attach
> >> > > >> >> > > > > implementation is a call to
vm_create_jthread()
> >> - this call
> >> > > >> >> introduces
> >> > > >> >> > > > > an extra dependency of TM on vmcore that I'd
> >> prefer to be
> >> > > >> >> avoided. In
> >> > > >> >> > > > > the original version, jthread_attach() was
> >> taking jthread
> >> > > >> >> argument of
> >> > > >> >> > > > > the already prepared j.l.Thread.
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > I understand your concern. Unfortunately I
don't
> >> see what we
> >> > > >> can do
> >> > > >> >> > > > here. Let me explain. In the beginning you
have an
> >> unattached
> >> > > >> >> native
> >> > > >> >> > > > thread. To be able to call java code (which is
> >> required for
> >> > > >> >> > > > constructing j.l.Thread instance) the thread
> >> should be attached
> >> > > >> >> first.
> >> > > >> >> > > > To be specific it should be attached to VM by
> >> calling vm_attach
> >> > > >> >> which
> >> > > >> >> > > > will return a valid JNIEnv It is valid to
use JNI
> >> from that
> >> > > >> moment.
> >> > > >> >> > > > Obtained JNIEnv can be used to execute java
code
> >> and create
> >> > > >> >> j.l.Thread
> >> > > >> >> > > > instance. Since we do vm_attach in
jthread_attach
> >> we need to do
> >> > > >> >> > > > vm_create_jthread inside jthread_atach as well.
> >> > > >> >> > > > Of course it can be an alternative to do
vm_attach
> >> and
> >> > > >> >> > > > vm_create_jthread outside of TM right before
> >> jthread_attach.
> >> > > >> >> Sure it
> >> > > >> >> > > > will reduce one dependence between VM and
TM. But
> >> it seems like
> >> > > >> >> > > > artificial action for me just because of
> >> dependency....
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > Why do you think it is artificial? I would rather
> >> prefer not to
> >> > > >> throw
> >> > > >> >> > > vm_attach event from the jthread_attach() call at
> >> all than to add
> >> > > >> >> > > extra dependency. The idea of jthread layer is a
> >> Java face to
> >> > > >> >> > > hythread, it is meant to know either a little or
> >> nothing about the
> >> > > >> >> > > rest of VM. It may be logical to throw vm_attach
> >> call from the
> >> > > >> newly
> >> > > >> >> > > created thread, because there is no other way
to let
> >> know VM
> >> > > >> the new
> >> > > >> >> > > thread is created. VM attach is a different
case -
> >> VM already
> >> > > >> knows
> >> > > >> >> > > about new Java thread at the time of the
> >> AttachCurrentThread call.
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Do you think it makes sense to replace a
single
> >> jthread
> >> > > >> >> parameter with
> >> > > >> >> > > > > a variety of stuff (like thread group,
name)? It
> >> seems the
> >> > > >> only
> >> > > >> >> > > > > purpose of at these args is to be passed
back to
> >> VM for
> >> > > >> >> > > > > vm_jthread_create(). I would suggest to
change
> >> this and try
> >> > > >> doing
> >> > > >> >> > > > > either of:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > 1) Make signature of jthread_attach with 3
args,
> >> JavaVM,
> >> > > >> >> jthread and the daemon.
> >> > > >> >> > > > Why do you want to pass daemon to TM but
thread's
> >> name and
> >> > > >> >> group. Just
> >> > > >> >> > > > because current TM doesn't need such
information?
> >> What if it is
> >> > > >> >> > > > required to get thread name later? Say by
introducing
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > I imagine you need a daemon attribute since
the TM
> >> is still
> >> > > >> managing
> >> > > >> >> > > the thread daemonality. TM is not managing thread
> >> name and group -
> >> > > >> >> > > they are all kept on the Java level, hence
passing
> >> them may be
> >> > > >> >> > > excessive.
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > jthread_get_name... What will you do in that
case?
> >> Let me
> >> > > >> guess you
> >> > > >> >> > > > will call j.l.Thread.getName. Right. Ok! In
that
> >> case I see no
> >> > > >> >> > > > problems to call j.l.Thread.isDaemon. Do you
> >> agree? So it
> >> > > >> doesn't
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > As I suggested earlier, the best way to handle
> >> daemonality would
> >> > > >> >> > > probably be in pure Java - in j.l.Thread (or
> >> > > >> j.l.VMThreadManager) or
> >> > > >> >> > > whatever. You already lifted it up to the jthread
> >> level, but
> >> > > >> what if
> >> > > >> >> > > we can go a little bit higher...
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > seems to be a good design to pass only part
of the
> >> > > >> information to
> >> > > >> >> > > > jthread_atach. Lets look at the signature of
> >> > > >> >> AttachCurrentThread. It
> >> > > >> >> > > > takes exactly these three parameters (daemon,
> >> name, group)
> >> > > >> >> passed as a
> >> > > >> >> > > > structure. I was thinking about having
exactly the
> >> same
> >> > > >> >> structure as
> >> > > >> >> > > > third parameter of jthread_attach but it
occured
> >> to be more
> >> > > >> >> convinient
> >> > > >> >> > > > to pass them seperatly. Although I don't see
> >> strong reasons
> >> > > >> against
> >> > > >> >> > > > having a structure a third parameter.
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > I see. Acually, I would love to keep the
> >> jthread_attach func-ty at
> >> > > >> >> the
> >> > > >> >> > > minimum level which will be needed to handle the
> >> only data that TM
> >> > > >> >> > > should be aware of. We need a formal boundary
> >> between jthread
> >> > > >> layer
> >> > > >> >> > > and vmcore (otherwise jthread won't have a
much of
> >> sense, one may
> >> > > >> >> > > consider it just as a convenience set of
functions
> >> in vmcore which
> >> > > >> >> are
> >> > > >> >> > > doing something with threading).
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > 2) Move the implementation of
vm_create_jtrhead
> >> () to
> >> > > >> >> > > > > thread_java_basic.c - could it be written in
> >> pure JNI without
> >> > > >> >> using
> >> > > >> >> > > > > internal VM API like class_alloc_new_object
()?
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > Yes, this can be done but it doesn't fix the
> >> problem. You still
> >> > > >> >> need
> >> > > >> >> > > > to know about internal constructor of
j.l.Thread
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > That's bad. Given what you said, now it seems
that
> >> the most
> >> > > >> >> preferable
> >> > > >> >> > > sequence for AttachCurrentThread impl still
would be
> >> like:
> >> > > >> >> > > JNIEnv = vm_attach();
> >> > > >> >> > > jthread = create_jthread(JNIenv)
> >> > > >> >> > > jthread_attach(JNIEnv, jthread) // stores
JNIEnv and
> >> Hythread into
> >> > > >> >> > > TLS, doesn't call vm_attach any longer.
> >> > > >> >> > > - this is almost what we had from the
beginning...
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> >> > > Andrey.
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > Thanks
> >> > > >> >> > > > Evgueni
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Andrey.
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Thank you
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Evgueni
> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Andrey Chernyshev
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Evgueni Brevnov
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Artem,
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback....
find my
> >> inlined.....
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Evgueni,
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I got most of your changes, but
still
> >> disagree
> >> > > >> with all
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread/jthread interface changes.
> >> Could leave
> >> > > >> >> interface unchanged.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > See following possible
solutions, that
> >> could solve
> >> > > >> >> the same problems
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > without interface changes.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 1) daemon attribute is a java
> >> specific. (Andrey
> >> > > >> >> mentioned this already).
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Could you please move it back. to
> >> the jthread
> >> > > >> >> layer. It is better
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to rename
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() to
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
jthread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads().
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, I see no problems to move
"daemon"
> >> to java layer.
> >> > > >> >> In that case:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 1) I will move
> >> > > >> >> hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() from
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > thread_init.c to one which implements
> >> java layer.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 2) I will move daemon field from
> >> HyThread structure.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Agree?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Sounds good to me.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > OK, will do that.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 2) JavaVM could be retrieved from
> >> JNIEnv by
> >> > > >> >> jni_get_java_vm(). So
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > let the jthread_create() and
others to
> >> use JNIEnv
> >> > > >> >> (that is passed from
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > java native method).
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The vm_attach could get old JNI env
> >> and create new
> >> > > >> >> one for the new thread.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The first JNIEnv is created in
> >> CreateVM call and
> >> > > >> >> could be passed to
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the first thread at startup.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > No, no, no. I completely disagree
with
> >> that!!! Why do
> >> > > >> >> you like JNIEnv
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > but JavaVM. Why do you think that
> >> passing JavaVM
> >> > > >> >> instead of JNIEnv
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > makes TM less modular? I don't see
any
> >> difference
> >> > > >> >> here.... It seems
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for me like a big big hack to grab
> >> JNIEnv from another
> >> > > >> >> thread and pass
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it to jthread_attach to perform
> >> operations in the
> >> > > >> >> current thread.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > TM needs to know JNIEnv, mainly for
> >> managing the
> >> > > >> >> references to
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > objects, throwing exceptions and
calling
> >> run() method of
> >> > > >> >> a new thread.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > JNI spec proposes that JNIEnv is valid
> >> within the given
> >> > > >> >> thread, this
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is why TM holds the JNIEnv pointer
at the
> >> moment. This
> >> > > >> >> is why TM likes
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > the JNIEnv.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Having the JNIEnv, one is able to get
> >> JavaVM but not
> >> > > >> >> vise versa. This
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is why TM doesn't like the JavaVM :)
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > I see your point. Only one note this
is true
> >> for already
> >> > > >> >> attached threads...
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I agree with you that there is a design
> >> flaw that the
> >> > > >> >> JNIEnv is copied
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > from the parent thread to a child
thread
> >> during thread
> >> > > >> >> creation. I
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > think it could be resolved via
vm_attach()
> >> hook - with
> >> > > >> >> this event, VM
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > might tell the TM what the JNIEnv
pointer
> >> for new thread
> >> > > >> >> should be. I
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > think you did that by extending the
> >> vm_attach() call
> >> > > >> >> with the JNIEnv**
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > argument.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > What is not completely clear is, why do
> >> you have to pass
> >> > > >> >> the JavaVM
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > forth and back, once from VM to TM, and
> >> then back from
> >> > > >> >> TM to VM again?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > If you need to know in jthread_attach,
> >> which particular
> >> > > >> >> VM vm_attach()
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > event is coming from, you could have
> >> vm_attach like
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > vm_attach(JNIEnv* currentThreadEnv,
JNIEnv**
> >> > > >> >> newThreadEnv).
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > I'm a little bit confused.....Current
thread
> >> hasn't been
> >> > > >> >> attached yet.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > So there is no JNIEnv for it yet. How
it can
> >> be passed as
> >> > > >> >> the first
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > parameter to vm_attach()?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Then you will be always able to get the
> >> JavaVM from the
> >> > > >> >> JNIEnv.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > The only difference is that you are
> >> currently doing
> >> > > >> >> JNIEnv->JavaVM
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > conversion in the VMThreadManager,
but why
> >> can't you
> >> > > >> >> just do this in
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > vm_attach() without changing the
interface
> >> of the TM?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > So far JavaVM really looks like an
extra
> >> knowledge that
> >> > > >> >> TM doesn't
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > have to be aware of.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Moreover there is no JNIEnv when main
> >> thread attaches
> >> > > >> >> to VM. So we
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > should either keep it as is or change
> >> original design
> >> > > >> >> of TM and attach
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > thread to VM before attaching it
to TM.
> >> In that case
> >> > > >> >> we will have
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valid JNIEnv which can be passed to
> >> jthread_atatch. We
> >> > > >> >> need to think
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > over it twice before changing
something....
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Right. For jthread_attach, JNIenv
needs to
> >> be changed
> >> > > >> >> from being input
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > parameter to being the output
parameter.
> >> The way how
> >> > > >> >> JNIenv is
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > obtained by TM should be vm_attach()
event.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > OK, JNIEnv is output parameter. And it
> >> obtained by
> >> > > >> >> vm_attach(). This
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > is exactly like I do in the patch. What I
> >> don't understand
> >> > > >> >> is how
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_attach knows to which VM the
thread
> >> should be
> >> > > >> >> attached? Do you
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > suggest calling vm_attach first to create
> >> JNIEnv it pass
> >> > > >> >> it to
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_attach?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 4) Original classlib hythread do
not use
> >> > > >> >> hythread_library_t in arguments,
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > It uses following code:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread_library_t lib =
GLOBAL_DATA
> >> > > >> >> (default_library);
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread_library_t library =
thread-
> >> >library;
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So could you please use the same
> >> mechanism and
> >> > > >> >> remove hythread_*_ex >functions.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Let's see if classlib's hythread
needs
> >> changing first.
> >> > > >> >> It seems for me
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > such code prevents us from having
multi VM.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 5. You introduce more then one jni
> >> env, but still
> >> > > >> >> use global variable for it.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So all changes like following:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)
> >> jni_native_intf;
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv =
jni_native_intf;
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > should be like:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)
> >> jni_native_intf;
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv = get_jni_env
> >> (jthread_self());
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, I see. I agree that global
> >> jni_native_intf should
> >> > > >> >> not be used.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > There was simple reason why I altered
> >> such lines.
> >> > > >> >> Because I changed
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the type of jni_native_intf and no
> >> casting operator
> >> > > >> >> is needed now. To
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > be honest I think get_jni_env
> >> (jthread_self()) can be
> >> > > >> >> good as temporary
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > solution only. Lets wait for
design of
> >> multi VM and
> >> > > >> >> fix it according
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > to it.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > While we are in JNI code, we always
have
> >> the JNIenv (at
> >> > > >> >> least
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > initially it comes from Java code).
If we
> >> consider VM
> >> > > >> >> code as if it
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > was a JNI application, then it seems
like
> >> we should be
> >> > > >> >> just passing
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > JNIEnv as a parameter to all
functions in
> >> VM. Or, we can
> >> > > >> >> be taking it
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > from TLS (via jthread_self()),
depending
> >> on which way is
> >> > > >> >> faster...
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > Agree.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 6). And small remarks:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init1(JavaVM_Internal *
java_vm,
> >> > > >> >> JavaVMInitArgs * vm_arguments);
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init2(JNIEnv_Internal *
> >> jni_env);
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Could you make names more
meaningful,
> >> then 1,2,3...?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, will do that.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > class VM_thread {
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ...
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv_Internal * jni_env;
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The jthread already has the jni_env
> >> pointer, you do
> >> > > >> >> not need to
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > duplicate it here.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > forexample by using
> >> > > >> >> jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self());
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes I know. I don't see any problems
> >> here. Some times
> >> > > >> >> it is much more
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > convenient to get JNIEnv from
VM_thread
> >> structure (and
> >> > > >> >> faster) instead
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of doing jthread_get_JNI_env
(jthread_self
> >> ()). So I
> >> > > >> >> need strong
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > arguments for removing it. Again it
> >> seems that should
> >> > > >> >> be addressed in
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > design of multi VM. So lets forget
about
> >> it for a
> >> > > >> >> while...
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I think that the data duplication would
> >> always serve as
> >> > > >> >> a potential
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > source of errors - while updating
one copy
> >> of object,
> >> > > >> >> you may forget
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to update the other, often resulting
into
> >> a strange
> >> > > >> >> behavior of the
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > whole application. Let's see what
are the
> >> specific
> >> > > >> >> performance
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > concerns that have to be addressed.
To get
> >> VM_thread
> >> > > >> >> structure, you
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > would eventually go to the TLS, just
like
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self()
would do.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > If there is already VM_thread
structure for
> >> some reasons
> >> > > >> >> then there
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > will be no extra access to TLS. It is
> >> definitely much
> >> > > >> more in
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self()
than just
> >> one TLS
> >> > > >> >> access and one
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > dereferncing. I don't think it is a
really
> >> big problem
> >> > > >> >> now. Do you
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > agree to look at this later. I guess
multi VM
> >> > > >> >> implementation will
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > alter it in any case.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > Thanks
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > Evgueni
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Evgueni
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Artem
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Evgueni Brevnov
> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > I suppose two days silence means
> >> that there is no
> >> > > >> >> objects (maybe
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > interest) against proposed
patch. I
> >> would suggest
> >> > > >> >> to commit it ASAP.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It really works! There are some
> >> cases when current
> >> > > >> >> VM crashes but the
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > patch fixes it. I can work on
> >> bringing cunit tests
> >> > > >> >> to live as soon as
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the patch is committed....
This is
> >> just my
> >> > > >> >> understanding.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr.
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > So where are we here?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:41 AM,
> >> Evgueni Brevnov
> >> > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Weldon Washburn
> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov
> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On 9/27/06, Andrey
Chernyshev
> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > (3)
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > One more lock is added -
> >> > > >> >> hythread_lib_lock. How is that differ
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> from
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the hythread_global_lock
> >> that we already
> >> > > >> >> have? Each extra lock
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to the
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > system may add more
> >> possibilities for
> >> > > >> >> deadlocks, as well as can
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > negatively impact the
> >> scalability (unless
> >> > > >> >> some of the existing
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locks
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > are split).
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_lib_lock acquires
> >> exactly the same
> >> > > >> >> lock as
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_global_lock.
> >> Probably I miss
> >> > > >> >> something but we need to be
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > compatible with IBM
threading
> >> library now.
> >> > > >> >> This library has such
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > function. That's why I
added
> >> it. Sounds
> >> > > >> right?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Well, this sort of, kind of
> >> sounds right but
> >> > > >> >> not quite. Its a
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> little more
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> subtle than being compatible
> >> with IBM
> >> > > >> >> threading library. The
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> first goal is
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to identify the parts of IBM
> >> threading
> >> > > >> >> library that are JVM
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> independent. It
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> makes sense for DRLVM to be
> >> compatible with
> >> > > >> >> the independent
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> parts. This
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> should be a nobrainer.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> The parts of IBM threading
> >> library that
> >> > > >> >> assume a specific JVM
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> will be a problem. We will
> >> need to find a
> >> > > >> >> solution that is
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> endorsed by all
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the stakeholders
(including J9
> >> folks). The
> >> > > >> >> hythread_global_lock
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> falls into
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> this category. For
starts, I
> >> would like to
> >> > > >> >> see a concise
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> description from
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the portlib owners on what
> >> > > >> >> hythread_global_lock protects, which
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locks have
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to be held before
grabbing this
> >> lock, are
> >> > > >> >> there any restrictions
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> on what
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> system calls can be made
while
> >> holding this
> >> > > >> >> lock (like sleep or
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wait), etc.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weldon, I completely agree
with
> >> what your are
> >> > > >> >> saying. It's common
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem of current
hythread that
> >> should be
> >> > > >> >> resolved some how. I just
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > go inline with current
> >> implementation and
> >> > > >> >> added two missing functions.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Missing these can lead to the
> >> same problems as
> >> > > >> >> with hythread_exit
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussed in another thread
> >> "[drlvm]
> >> > > >> >> [launcher] Executable hangs".
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> To get a better idea
what's in the
> >> > > >> >> patch.diff, I printed it out.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Its 120+
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> pages. Quite a big patch!
> >> Most of it looks
> >> > > >> >> like straight forward
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> JNI
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> interface glue. There
are some
> >> tricky
> >> > > >> >> parts. I would like to
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> know the
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> design review process for
these
> >> parts. Using
> >> > > >> >> grep, I found 20
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locations
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
where ...suspend_enable... and
> >> > > >> >> ...suspend_disable... have been
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> added. And
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 25 locations where enable/
> >> disable have been
> >> > > >> >> removed. Failure in
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> this logic
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> can lead to incorrect
reference
> >> pointer
> >> > > >> >> enumeration. These are
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> probably the
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hardest bugs to find.
Please
> >> tell us who has
> >> > > >> >> looked at this code
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> in depth.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Only me and you :-)
Honetsly I
> >> think it
> >> > > >> >> happpens now....
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Are there any known design
> >> flaws in it?
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can think of two possible
> >> problems we may
> >> > > >> >> want to discuss.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Should native threads have
> >> "daemon" status
> >> > > >> >> or its completely java
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > notion? This is TM related
thing.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Should we attach thread
to VM
> >> before
> >> > > >> >> attaching it to TM by calling
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > jthread_atatch OR
jthread_attach
> >> should
> >> > > >> >> callback VM to attach a thread
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to it? I didn't change
original
> >> design of TM
> >> > > >> >> here ...... it implements
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > second choice.
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I also notice APIs called
> >> > > >> tmn_suspend_enable(),
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hythread_suspend_enable()
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> -- are these simply
different
> >> names for the
> >> > > >> >> same binary
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> executible. Or
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> different binaries that
do the
> >> same thing??
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not just
different
> >> names.
> >> > > >> >> tm_suspend_enable asserts that
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread is in disabled state
> >> before calling
> >> > > >> >> hythread_suspend_enable (in
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > debug mode only).
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Weldon Washburn
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Intel Middleware Products
> >> Division
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-
mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-
mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > --
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > > --
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > > Terms of use :
> >> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/
harmony/
> >> mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > > --
> >> > > >> >> > > Andrey Chernyshev
> >> > > >> >> > > Intel Middleware Products Division
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/
harmony/
> >> mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
> >> mailing.html
> >> > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
> >> mailing.html
> >> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
mailing.html
> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
mailing.html
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
