[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [14] Review Request: 8235547 Video memory leak in the OGL pipeline on macOS

2019-12-08 Thread Sergey Bylokhov
Hello. Please review the fix for JDK 14. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8235547 Fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8235547/webrev.01 Every window's peer on macOS has a native OGL surface which is used as a back buffer for CAOpenGLLayer. This surface should be disposed in two c

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [14] Review Request: 8235547 Video memory leak in the OGL pipeline on macOS

2019-12-09 Thread Phil Race
How did this get found ? Is it a regression caused by some other bug fix ? Do we have any reports of bugs that can be attributed to this ? How did you test that this does not cause any problems (crashes) ? -phil. On 12/8/19 6:36 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: Hello. Please review the fix for JDK

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [14] Review Request: 8235547 Video memory leak in the OGL pipeline on macOS

2019-12-09 Thread Sergey Bylokhov
On 12/9/19 10:23 am, Phil Race wrote: How did this get found ? Is it a regression caused by some other bug fix ? I had run the test for the old bug, to check that we do not have new regressions. And found this one by running a simple system monitor, the usage memory grows rapidly. Behavior is

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [14] Review Request: 8235547 Video memory leak in the OGL pipeline on macOS

2019-12-09 Thread Philip Race
OK, +1 -phil. On 12/9/19, 11:15 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: On 12/9/19 10:23 am, Phil Race wrote: How did this get found ? Is it a regression caused by some other bug fix ? I had run the test for the old bug, to check that we do not have new regressions. And found this one by running a simpl

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [14] Review Request: 8235547 Video memory leak in the OGL pipeline on macOS

2019-12-10 Thread Jayathirth D v
+1. Thanks, Jay > On 10-Dec-2019, at 12:48 AM, Philip Race wrote: > > OK, +1 > > -phil. > > On 12/9/19, 11:15 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: >> On 12/9/19 10:23 am, Phil Race wrote: >>> How did this get found ? Is it a regression caused by some other bug fix ? >> >> I had run the test for the ol