Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v5]

2024-02-13 Thread David Holmes
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:11:18 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote: >> The implementation of the JVM TI `GetObjectMonitorUsage` does not match the >> spec. >> The function returns the following structure: >> >> >> typedef struct { >> jthread owner; >> jint entry_count; >> jint waiter_count;

Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v4]

2024-02-13 Thread David Holmes
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:34:57 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote: >> test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/GetObjectMonitorUsage/objmonusage003.java >> line 33: >> >>> 31: final static int NUMBER_OF_ENTERER_THREADS = 4; >>> 32: final static int NUMBER_OF_WAITER_THREADS = 4; >>> 33: final

Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v4]

2024-02-13 Thread Daniel D . Daugherty
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:39:38 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote: >> Sorry really struggling to understand this now. We have gone from a simple >> miscalculation to apparently doing everything wrong. >> >> IIUC this API does not currently handle virtual threads correctly -i s that >> the case? If so I

Re: RFR: 8309271: A way to align already compiled methods with compiler directives [v25]

2024-02-13 Thread Dmitry Chuyko
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 21:12:19 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote: >> Compiler Control (https://openjdk.org/jeps/165) provides method-context >> dependent control of the JVM compilers (C1 and C2). The active directive >> stack is built from the directive files passed with the >>

Re: Call for Discussion: New Project: Skogsluft

2024-02-13 Thread ysr1729
Excellent initiative, thank you! A couple of drive-by remarks: 1. Seems to naturally belong in the Serviceability group (hereby cc’d), who appear to me to be natural sponsors of such an effort 2. I notice in the census (openjdk.org/census#serviceability) that some portion of the

Re: RFR: JDK-8320005 : Allow loading of shared objects with .a extension on AIX [v22]

2024-02-13 Thread Joachim Kern
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:04:21 GMT, Suchismith Roy wrote: >> J2SE agent does not start and throws error when it tries to find the shared >> library ibm_16_am. >> After searching for ibm_16_am.so ,the jvm agent throws and error as dll_load >> fails.It fails to identify the shared library

Re: RFR: 8252136: Several methods in hotspot are missing "static" [v2]

2024-02-13 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:47:59 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote: > The argument alignment is wonky after this patch. Could you go over the patch > and fix that? I did not think of that, sorry. Fixed now. (It turned out that not all places were properly aligned even before my patch...) There are some

Re: RFR: 8252136: Several methods in hotspot are missing "static" [v2]

2024-02-13 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
> There are several places in hotspot where an internal function should have > been declared static, but isn't. > > These were discovered by trying to use the gcc option > `-Wmissing-declarations` and the corresponding clang option > `-Wmissing-prototypes`. These warnings check that a

Re: RFR: 8252136: Several methods in hotspot are missing "static"

2024-02-13 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 19:44:46 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote: >> There are several places in hotspot where an internal function should have >> been declared static, but isn't. >> >> These were discovered by trying to use the gcc option >> `-Wmissing-declarations` and the corresponding clang option

Integrated: 8325558: Add jcheck whitespace checking for properties files

2024-02-13 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:35:55 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is an attempt to finally implement the idea brought forward in > JDK-8295729: Properties files is essentially source code. It should have the > same whitespace checks as all other source code, so we don't get spurious >

Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v4]

2024-02-13 Thread Serguei Spitsyn
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:08:33 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > Sorry really struggling to understand this now. We have gone from a simple > miscalculation to apparently doing everything wrong. IIUC this API does not > currently handle virtual threads correctly - is that the case? If so I would >

Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v4]

2024-02-13 Thread Serguei Spitsyn
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:06:05 GMT, David Holmes wrote: >> Serguei Spitsyn has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> review: fixed issues in get_object_monitor_usage; extended test coverage >> in objmonusage003 > >

Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v4]

2024-02-13 Thread Serguei Spitsyn
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 06:55:46 GMT, David Holmes wrote: >> Serguei Spitsyn has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> review: fixed issues in get_object_monitor_usage; extended test coverage >> in objmonusage003 > >

Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v4]

2024-02-13 Thread Serguei Spitsyn
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:00:41 GMT, David Holmes wrote: >> Serguei Spitsyn has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> review: fixed issues in get_object_monitor_usage; extended test coverage >> in objmonusage003 > >