Re: RFR (XS): 8173936 [TESTBUG] test/serviceability/jvmti/ModuleAwareAgents/ClassFileLoadHook/MAAClassFileLoadHook.java needs to be re-examined

2017-10-17 Thread George Triantafillou
Hi Serguei, This looks good. -George On 10/17/2017 1:35 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: Please, review a fix for the test bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173936 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8173936-MAA-cflh.1/ Summary:   This test e

Re: RFR (XS): 8173936 [TESTBUG] test/serviceability/jvmti/ModuleAwareAgents/ClassFileLoadHook/MAAClassFileLoadHook.java needs to be re-examined

2017-10-17 Thread serguei.spit...@oracle.com
Hi George, Thank you a lot for review! Serguei On 10/17/17 05:40, George Triantafillou wrote: Hi Serguei, This looks good. -George On 10/17/2017 1:35 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:

Re: PING: RFR: JDK-8151815: Could not parse core image with JSnap.

2017-10-17 Thread David Holmes
Hi Yasumasa, By chance we ran into this bug which I analysed yesterday: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189390 We hit the assertion: # Internal Error (/open/src/hotspot/share/runtime/perfMemory.cpp:216), pid=17874, tid=17875 # assert(_prologue != __null) failed: called before ini

RFR(S): 8189425: Minor updates in support of closed changes

2017-10-17 Thread Erik Gahlin
Hi, Could I have a review of this change that will adjust an assertion and remove a lock associated with JFR. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/8189425_0 Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189425 Thanks Erik

Re: RFR(S): 8189425: Minor updates in support of closed changes

2017-10-17 Thread David Holmes
Hi Erik, On 18/10/2017 12:23 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote: Hi, Could I have a review of this change that will adjust an assertion and Can you explain the adjustment please. remove a lock associated with JFR. That bit is fine :) Thanks, David Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/818942

RFR: 8189440: Event tracing macros for allocation and weak oops processing

2017-10-17 Thread Erik Gahlin
Hi, Could I have a review of a change that adds two macros to be used with event-based JVM tracing. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189440 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/8189440_0 Thanks Erik

Re: PING: RFR: JDK-8151815: Could not parse core image with JSnap.

2017-10-17 Thread Yasumasa Suenaga
Hi David, > With your changes you no longer null out _prologue so the assertion would > now not fail and we'd proceed to access the deleted memory region! On Linux, PerfMemory::delete_memory_region() does not call munmap() for PerfMemory. > I'm unclear why you no longer clear all the fields set

Re: RFR: 8189440: Event tracing macros for allocation and weak oops processing

2017-10-17 Thread David Holmes
Hi Erik, On 18/10/2017 12:34 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote: Hi, Could I have a review of a change that adds two macros to be used with event-based JVM tracing. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189440 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/8189440_0 Reviewed - though all somewha

Re: PING: RFR: JDK-8151815: Could not parse core image with JSnap.

2017-10-17 Thread David Holmes
On 18/10/2017 12:37 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi David, With your changes you no longer null out _prologue so the assertion would now not fail and we'd proceed to access the deleted memory region! On Linux, PerfMemory::delete_memory_region() does not call munmap() for PerfMemory. Perhaps

Re: PING: RFR: JDK-8151815: Could not parse core image with JSnap.

2017-10-17 Thread Yasumasa Suenaga
Hi David, 2017-10-18 12:55 GMT+09:00 David Holmes : > On 18/10/2017 12:37 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >>> With your changes you no longer null out _prologue so the assertion would >>> now not fail and we'd proceed to access the deleted memory region! >> >> >> On Linux, PerfMemor

Re: PING: RFR: JDK-8151815: Could not parse core image with JSnap.

2017-10-17 Thread David Holmes
On 18/10/2017 2:27 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi David, 2017-10-18 12:55 GMT+09:00 David Holmes : On 18/10/2017 12:37 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi David, With your changes you no longer null out _prologue so the assertion would now not fail and we'd proceed to access the deleted memory r

Re: PING: RFR: JDK-8151815: Could not parse core image with JSnap.

2017-10-17 Thread Yasumasa Suenaga
Hi David, > I don't think we need the extra fields, just ensure the existing ones can't > be accessed (other than by the tools) after destroy is called. I've added PerfMemory::is_useable() to check whether we can access to PerfMemory. I think this webrev prevent to access to PerfMemory after dest