On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:37:26 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> A sanity check using "jcmd VM.info" to catch the signal handler modification
> warning: it should never trigger during this test.
How does this relate the failure in JDK-8285647? Is this just meant to detect
that failure, but a proper fix i
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:37:26 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> A sanity check using "jcmd VM.info" to catch the signal handler modification
> warning: it should never trigger during this test.
Marked as reviewed by amenkov (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8106
> The test failed if GC happens somewhere between
> Class c = Class.forName("TestClass", true, dummyloader);
> and
> OutputAnalyzer output = executor.execute("VM.classloader_stats");
>
> The fix is to make hc static as Chris proposed.
>
> To verfiy fix I add System.gc() before
> executor.execut
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:05:45 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Albert Mingkun Yang has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - comment
>> - Rework reference type initialization
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Albert Yang
>
> src/hotspot/sha
> Simple rename and some comments update.
>
> Test: build
Albert Mingkun Yang has updated the pull request incrementally with one
additional commit since the last revision:
review
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8332/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.j
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:24:33 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains seven additional commits
>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:05:39 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons),
>> please review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>>
>> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
>> out
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:36:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Looks like 1 is enough.
@wangweij done.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8301
> These are the changes that too many to be reviewed in 8186958, thus split
> some of them out.
XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
change from 3 to 1 according to wangweij
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openj
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:24:26 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons), please
> review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>
> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
> out in an
> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons), please
> review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>
> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
> out in another bug if that would ease maintenance of that code
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:58:40 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons),
>> please review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>>
>> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
>> out
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:56:38 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> These are the changes that too many to be reviewed in 8186958, thus split
>> some of them out.
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> revert changes to java.deskt
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:58:40 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons),
>> please review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>>
>> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
>> out
> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons), please
> review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>
> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
> out in another bug if that would ease maintenance of that code
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 07:19:34 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Lookup.defineHiddenClass allows class options to be specified, one of which
>> is "STRONG" to mean that the hidden class can't unloaded if its defining
>> loader is reachable.
>>
>> A static reference or a reachability fence should work
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 08:10:38 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Respond to more review feedback.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/file/WatchEvent.java line 51:
>
>> 49: /**
> These are the changes that too many to be reviewed in 8186958, thus split
> some of them out.
XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
revert changes to java.desktop as prrace said
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 08:08:37 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Respond to more review feedback.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/file/SecureDirectoryStream.java line 55:
>
>> 5
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 05:11:54 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
> Also do not change J2DBench. We deliberately avoid using new API so that we
> can take it and run it on very old JDK versions to help track regressions.
For J2DBench, I don't see any changes that not complicated with older jdk
version for no
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:10:18 GMT, Markus Grönlund wrote:
>> src/jdk.jfr/share/classes/jdk/jfr/events/VirtualThreadSubmitFailedEvent.java
>> line 35:
>>
>>> 33:
>>> 34: @Category({"Java Runtime"})
>>> 35: @Label("Virtual thread submit task failed")
>>
>> The label is a bit a long, would "Virtu
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:44:05 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>> Alan Bateman has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Refresh 7965cc6b168e567ac2596f2fbc3b00a7d99b7e1e
>
> src/hotspot/share/jfr/leakprofiler/sampling/objectSampler.cpp line
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:41:04 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>> Alan Bateman has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Refresh 7965cc6b168e567ac2596f2fbc3b00a7d99b7e1e
>
> src/hotspot/share/jfr/recorder/checkpoint/jfrCheckpointManager.cpp
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:37:22 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>> Alan Bateman has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Refresh 7965cc6b168e567ac2596f2fbc3b00a7d99b7e1e
>
> src/hotspot/share/jfr/recorder/checkpoint/jfrCheckpointWriter.cpp l
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:24:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 425: Virtual Threads (Preview); TBD which
>> JDK version to target.
>>
>> We will refresh this PR periodically to pick up changes and fixes from the
>> loom repo.
>>
>> Most of the new mechanisms in the
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:38:32 GMT, Johannes Bechberger
wrote:
>> Calling JavaThread::thread_from_jni_environment for a terminated thread in
>> AsyncGetCallTrace might cause the acquisition of a lock, making
>> AsyncGetCallTrace non-signal-safe.
>>
>> AsyncGetCallTrace can only be called for t
> Calling JavaThread::thread_from_jni_environment for a terminated thread in
> AsyncGetCallTrace might cause the acquisition of a lock, making
> AsyncGetCallTrace non-signal-safe.
>
> AsyncGetCallTrace can only be called for the current threads (there are
> asserts for that), therefore using J
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:15:34 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Calling JavaThread::thread_from_jni_environment for a terminated thread in
>> AsyncGetCallTrace might cause the acquisition of a lock, making
>> AsyncGetCallTrace non-signal-safe.
>>
>> AsyncGetCallTrace can only be called for the curre
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:38:30 GMT, Johannes Bechberger
wrote:
> Calling JavaThread::thread_from_jni_environment for a terminated thread in
> AsyncGetCallTrace might cause the acquisition of a lock, making
> AsyncGetCallTrace non-signal-safe.
>
> AsyncGetCallTrace can only be called for the cu
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:15:33 GMT, Albert Mingkun Yang wrote:
>> Simple rename and some comments update.
>>
>> Test: build
>
> Albert Mingkun Yang has updated the pull request incrementally with two
> additional commits since the last revision:
>
> - comment
> - Rework reference type initiali
Calling JavaThread::thread_from_jni_environment for a terminated thread in
AsyncGetCallTrace might cause the acquisition of a lock, making
AsyncGetCallTrace non-signal-safe.
AsyncGetCallTrace can only be called for the current threads (there are asserts
for that), therefore using JavaThread::c
> Simple rename and some comments update.
>
> Test: build
Albert Mingkun Yang has updated the pull request incrementally with two
additional commits since the last revision:
- comment
- Rework reference type initialization
Signed-off-by: Albert Yang
-
Changes:
- all: h
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:43:45 GMT, Albert Mingkun Yang wrote:
>> Simple rename and some comments update.
>>
>> Test: build
>
> Albert Mingkun Yang has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> Remove REF_ enum for java.lang.ref.Reference
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 01:34:19 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons),
>> please review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>>
>> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
>> out
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 01:34:19 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> To enable more complete doclint checking (courtesy @jonathan-gibbons),
>> please review this PR to add type-level @param tags where they are missing.
>>
>> To the maintainers of java.util.concurrent, those changes could be separated
>> out
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:43:22 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Alan Bateman has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Refresh 7965cc6b168e567ac2596f2fbc3b00a7d99b7e1e
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ThreadPerTaskExecu
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:21:58 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/UnsafeConstants.java line 122:
>>
>>> 120: */
>>> 121:
>>> 122: public static final int SCOPED_CACHE_SHIFT;
>>
>> I can't find this constant being used. If added for future, maybe
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 07:16:05 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Yes, that seems to be the case, and you are right that it is not something
>> that is safe to assume.
>
> Lookup.defineHiddenClass allows class options to be specified, one of which
> is "STRONG" to mean that the hidden class can't unload
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 04:46:35 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> This line added by 8238358: Implementation of JEP 371: Hidden Classes which
>> has many co-authors. Hope someone could provide an explanation during this
>> review.
>>
>> It might be possible that the goal was to verify that VM.classl
48 matches
Mail list logo
