On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:35:11 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 20:51:41 GMT, Tim Prinzing wrote:
> The existing JFR tests TestSocketChannelEvents and TestSocketEvents in
> jdk.jfr.event.io verify the events are still emitted as expected.
Thanks Tim. Should 8308995 be listed in the `@bug` clause of these two tests?
-
PR
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 11:21:51 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> Thanks Tim. Should 8308995 be listed in the `@bug` clause of these two tests?
I don't think so as these tests are just used to check that changes haven't
broken anything.
-
PR Comment:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:35:11 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
> 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
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 21:54:44 GMT, Tim Prinzing wrote:
> No. I think it's a relic from the distant past though. I think the timeout
> field should be removed. It's not used on SocketChannel at all, and it
> doesn't seem useful on Socket.
Should we log an RFE to that effect?
-
PR
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 21:50:17 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 15:55:21 GMT, Tim Prinzing wrote:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310979 - better exception handling
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310978 - missing code paths for event
>>> generation https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310994 - non-blocking,
>>> event
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:18:21 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/Socket.java line 1133:
>>
>>> 1131: return parent.getSoTimeout();
>>> 1132: } catch (Throwable t) {
>>> 1133: // ignored - avoiding exceptions in jfr event
> 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
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 15:55:21 GMT, Tim Prinzing wrote:
> I think it's useful if trying to trace the calls (i.e. set to 0ms).
> Apparently the security manager was being used for that by some.
The SM isn't called once connected so I don't think anyone could have every
done that. Yes, you could
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:31:36 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310979 - better exception handling
> > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310978 - missing code paths for event
> > generation https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310994 - non-blocking,
> > event
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 18:53:12 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 18:53:12 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 18:29:45 GMT, Tim Prinzing wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/nio/ch/SocketChannelImpl.java line 408:
>>
>>> 406: @Override
>>> 407: public int read(ByteBuffer buf) throws IOException {
>>> 408: if (!SocketReadEvent.enabled()) {
>>
>> The read/write
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 06:09:14 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Tim Prinzing has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains ten commits:
>>
>> - remove unused SOCKET_READ and SOCKET_WRITE configurations.
>> - Merge branch 'master'
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 18:53:12 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 13:39:51 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote:
> An exception event will be emitted. The event is disabled by default, but
> there is ongoing work on a throttling mechanism, so it can be always-on.
Good, I think the exception cases are probably the most interesting for this
area when it
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 20:09:39 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310979 - better exception handling
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310978 - missing code paths for event
> generation https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310994 - non-blocking, event
> for
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 18:53:12 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:19:27 GMT, Tim Prinzing wrote:
> I believe this has all requested changes or has separate bug reports to
> address changes yet needing to be made.
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310979 - better exception handling
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310978 -
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 18:53:12 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
> 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
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 21:52:08 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
> 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
> 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 13:39:51 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote:
> In cases where the implRead/implWrite call throws an exception, shouldn't the
> event contain that exception, or at least exception message? If it doesn't
> should it be emitted at all, or should another event be emitted instead?
Added
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:21:46 GMT, Alan Bateman 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
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 11:53:59 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> The new code seems to accurately correspond to what the various
> `*Instrumentor` classes were doing, so that is good. I agree with Alan that
> potential exception that may arise when generating the event are an issue
> (e.g. call to
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 19:39:31 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:48:30 GMT, Alan Bateman 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
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 19:39:31 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 19:39:31 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 16:59:22 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> 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.
This code is already using implXXX so it's just be consistent.
-
PR Review
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:46:35 GMT, Alan Bateman 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
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
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 19:39:31 GMT, Tim Prinzing 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
37 matches
Mail list logo
