Hi Mandy,
Yes, I have tested and all settings are passed, as you mentioned the
test hangs with -XX:+UseG1GC -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent and
default heap size as no GC happens on Old Gen. That is why to add -Xmx2m
and big object to make sure GC happens.
I didn't realized the -Xconcgc is same as -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC, i
have updated the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/>
Thanks,
Eric
On 2013/11/27 10:17, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Eric,
I'll defer this to the serviceability team to sponsor it and also get
one more review.
I don't think you need all 7 @runs. -Xconcgc is equivalent to setting
-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC. For G1 and CMS, you should use
-XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent so that System.gc will force a GC in
foreground that you can count the GC reliably. The test wants to get
notified for each System.gc and if there is any GC caused by
allocation failure, the test would fail due to the unexpected GC
count. It seems that you may run into this issue setting -Xmx2m.
Have you got the test passed in all settings? I'm seeing that the
test hangs with -XX:+UseG1GC -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent without
-Xmx2m. Looks like there is no GC in the old gen - I'm not familiar
with G1 if it allocates the big object in the old gen. Jarolsav - can
you help Eric diagnose this issue? I recalled you ran into something
like that before - maybe Staffan?
thanks
Mandy
On 11/25/2013 8:53 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Mandy,
1. for L34-40, executing tests with 7 settings is trying to cover
more cases (normal cases and special cases), especially last 3
settings, as found that the test hung if using vm option
"-XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent" with one of 3 options
-XX:+UseG1GC, -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC or -Xconcgc
2. for L61, that is right, the test has been updated. please review.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/>
Thanks,
Eric
On 2013/11/26 8:37, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 11/24/2013 7:41 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Mandy & All,
Sorry for late!
The webrev below is just finished based on the comments from peers,
please help to review.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eewang/JDK-7067973/webrev.00/>
Thanks for the patch that looks okay. Some comments:
L34-40: can you explain why you want to run all 7 settings? I would
expect one for each collector.
L61: I think the static checker variable is meant to be a local
variable (and looks like "pools" and "managers" don't need to be
static variable).
Mandy
Thanks,
Eric
On 2013/11/15 10:55, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 11/14/2013 6:16 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I'm working on the bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7067973.
It is a test bug as the test doesn't guarantee memory allocated
from the Old Gen, if the used memory is zero and doesn't cross
the threshold, no notification is sent, so both the main thread
and Checker thread are blocked to wait for the GC notification.
so the suggested fix is similar as the fix
ResetPeakMemoryUsage.java
<http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/a0896634ab46> to
create big object to make sure the old gen usage crosses the
threshold and run test with different GC vmoptions.
What are you looking for specifically? I have provided the above
information. I need to see the webrev to provide further feedback.
Mandy
