Thanks for the review, David! And thank you for pointing that out about
the test. Since the GCs are variable, I'll just delete the line checking
for "CollectFull." The test is still sufficient to test the logging. And
I'll check in the code.
Rachel
On 11/22/2015 11:30 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Rachel,
Code changes seem okay - thanks.
We will continue discussion re info vs debug elsewhere. :)
I think we will also have to address the problem of no-atomic logging of
multi-part logging statements sometime as well. Not a new problem but
perhaps exacerbated in UL and compounded by inc
Thank you, David, Kirk, Marcus, Max, and Coleen, for all your comments.
Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8143157.01/
Changes:
- moved initialization of "outputStream* debugstream" to inside
vmoperation conditional
- added boolean for log_is_enabled conditional to save duplic
Hi Marcus,
On 19/11/2015 10:23 PM, Marcus Larsson wrote:
Hi,
On 2015-11-18 23:06, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Rachel,
On 19/11/2015 4:41 AM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hi,
On 11/18/2015 12:32 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
I think the issue is that doit() happens regardless of what is being
logged. I don't
Hello!
On 11/19/2015 3:48 AM, kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
You enable the logging with "-Xlog:vmoperation=debug". If you leave of
the "=" portion, it is by default parsed as "=info". We don't
believe this vmoperation logging needs to come out by default in the
case where someone
Hi,
On 2015-11-18 23:06, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Rachel,
On 19/11/2015 4:41 AM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hi,
On 11/18/2015 12:32 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
I think the issue is that doit() happens regardless of what is being
logged. I don't think we can reorder the logging statements relative
to doi
Hi David,
>> You enable the logging with "-Xlog:vmoperation=debug". If you leave of
>> the "=" portion, it is by default parsed as "=info". We don't
>> believe this vmoperation logging needs to come out by default in the
>> case where someone asks for "-Xlog:all", so we put it one level belo
Hi Rachel,
On 19/11/2015 4:41 AM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hi,
On 11/18/2015 12:32 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
I think the issue is that doit() happens regardless of what is being
logged. I don't think we can reorder the logging statements relative
to doit(). In that case, we would be forced to split
Thinking more
Given we have three logging levels that are supposed to increase in
detail, I think our responsibility is to simply identify what
constitutes general information, "debug" level detail, and "tracing"
level detail. To me what we show for the VM operation is basic
information.
Hi,
On 11/18/2015 12:32 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
I think the issue is that doit() happens regardless of what is being
logged. I don't think we can reorder the logging statements relative
to doit(). In that case, we would be forced to split into 2
conditionals for the logging.
Still I don't thin
Hi Rachel,
On 18/11/2015 5:50 AM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
Hi,
Please review the following small logging enhancement.
Summary: The former -XX:+TraceVMOperation flag is updated to the unified
logging framework and is now replaced with -Xlog:vmoperation in product
mode.
Open webrev: http://cr.ope
Hi,
Please review the following small logging enhancement.
Summary: The former -XX:+TraceVMOperation flag is updated to the unified
logging framework and is now replaced with -Xlog:vmoperation in product
mode.
Open webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8143157/
Bug: https://bugs.open
12 matches
Mail list logo
