Re: RFR: 8287496: Alternative virtual thread implementation that maps to OS thread [v2]

On Tue, 31 May 2022 15:39:39 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> This patch adds an alternative virtual thread implementation where each >> virtual thread is backed by an OS thread. It doesn't scale but it can be >> used by ports that don't have continuations support in the VM. Aside from >> scalabili

Re: RFR: 8251462: Remove legacy compilation policy [v2]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 05:03:45 GMT, Igor Veresov wrote: >>> I see some regression on ARM32 with this change: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bulasevich/tmp/8251462_jtreg_hotspot/ >> >> I don't think those are related to the changes. Those are probably some >> preexisting c1 and c2 problems respec

Re: RFR: 8251462: Remove legacy compilation policy [v2]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 02:54:02 GMT, Igor Veresov wrote: >> To clarify the possible configs. >> 1. There is only one policy now. Functions with both compilers or a single >> compiler. >> 2. The best way to control the operation mode is with the >> ```-XX:CompilationMode=``` flag. Possible values s

Re: RFR: 8251462: Remove legacy compilation policy [v3]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 23:06:19 GMT, Igor Veresov wrote: >> This change removes the legacy compilation policy and an emulation mode to >> the tiered policy to simulate the old behavior with >> ```-XX:-TieredCompilation```. The change removed a bunch of interpreter >> code, devirtualizes the compil

Re: RFR: 8245543: Cgroups: Incorrect detection logic on some systems (still reproducible) [v4]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:08:13 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Yes. I've removed unused groups now, though. >> >> Originally, my thinking was that `mount root` and `mount path` would be >> useful too so I kept it in. It would certainly >> be useful for getting rid of reading `/proc/self/mountinfo`

Re: RFR: 8245543: Cgroups: Incorrect detection logic on some systems (still reproducible)

On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:39:09 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> An issue similar to >> [JDK-8239559](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239559) has been >> discovered. On the >> affected system, `/proc/self/mountinfo` contains a line such as this one: >> >> 35 26 0:26 / /sys/fs/cgroup/system

Re: RFR: 8245543: Cgroups: Incorrect detection logic on some systems (still reproducible)

On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:34:49 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > An issue similar to > [JDK-8239559](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239559) has been > discovered. On the > affected system, `/proc/self/mountinfo` contains a line such as this one: > > 35 26 0:26 / /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd rw,n

Re: RFR: 8233600: cross-builds fails after JDK-8233285

Thank you! On 06.11.2019 19:18, Erik Joelsson wrote: Looks good! Verified the same patch with all our available cross compile builds. /Erik On 2019-11-06 06:31, Boris Ulasevich wrote: Hi, Indeed, the fix is quite evident. I checked it works for arm32/aarch cross-compilation builds. http

RFR: 8233600: cross-builds fails after JDK-8233285

Hi, Indeed, the fix is quite evident. I checked it works for arm32/aarch cross-compilation builds. http://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233600 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bulasevich/8233600/webrev.00 regards, Boris On 06.11.2019 16:33, Erik Joelsson wrote: I looked closer at it now and t

Re: RFR(M): 8227680: FastJNIAccessors: Check for JVMTI field access event requests at runtime

27;t have a significant performance impact. Would be great if you could take a look and test that, too. Thanks and best regards, Martin -----Original Message- From: Boris Ulasevich Sent: Freitag, 26. Juli 2019 12:50 To: Doerr, Martin Cc: hotspot-runtime-...@openjdk.java.net; serviceability

Re: RFR(M): 8227680: FastJNIAccessors: Check for JVMTI field access event requests at runtime

Hi Martin, Your change works Ok on arm32 with the minor correction. See the patch attached. thanks, Boris On 16.07.2019 16:31, Doerr, Martin wrote: Hi, the current implementation of FastJNIAccessors ignores the flag -XX:+UseFastJNIAccessors when the JVMTI capability "can_post_field_access"

Re: jmx-dev RFR: 8214545: sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap tests hang in revokeall.exe on Windows

On 20.05.2019 13:13, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Hi, On 20/05/2019 01:43, David Holmes wrote: Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8214545 Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214545 The count-- is obvious as it is the loop counter, but it is far from clear to me that i++ is correct

Re: RFR: 8214545: sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap tests hang in revokeall.exe on Windows

The change is good. Thank you! regards, Boris On 20.05.2019 3:43, David Holmes wrote: Hi Daniil, cc: Boris and Erik J. On 20/05/2019 7:12 am, Daniil Titov wrote: Please review the change that fixes the failure of sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap JMX tests on Windows platform. While runni

Re: RFR (XS) 8204961: JVMTI jtreg tests build warnings on 32-bit platforms

added serviceability-dev as JVM TI and its tests are technically serviceability concerns. On 14/06/2018 10:39 PM, Boris Ulasevich wrote: Hi all, Please review the following patch:    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8204961    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bulasevich/8204961/webrev.01

Re: JDK-8171119: Low-Overhead Heap Profiling

Hi JC, I have just checked on arm32: your patch compiles and runs ok. As I can see, jtreg agentlib name "-agentlib:HeapMonitor" does not correspond to actual library name: libHeapMonitorTest.c -> libHeapMonitorTest.so Boris On 04.04.2018 01:54, White, Derek wrote: Thanks JC, New patch