Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
On 22.1.2014 14:27, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
The bug was reproduced only on jdk6 on my Mac, but well passed on 7/8/9.
We can have several solutions, like to use:
Runtime.getRuntime().maxMemory()
Runtime.getRuntime().totalMemory;
MemoryUsage.getCommitted()
You were also mentioning passing -XMaxHeapSize argument to force G1 to
put restriction on the max heap size in the issue. Does it work?
Yes it worked too, as other solutions I mentioned above.
or hard-code chunkSize to be 1M.
I found that the test ran much faster with:
chunkSize = Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory()/10;
than:
chunkSize = 1M;
That's odd - unless "Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory()/10" gives you a
chunk much smaller than 1M. BTW, why do you divide the amount of free
memory by 10? The "mu.getMax()" based calculation is using 20.
Wouldn't this give you a bigger chunk when calculating it from
"freeMemory()". And this would also increase the expected threshold
since the chunk is multiplied by NUM_CHUNKS to get the threshold.
Yes it is interesting, it took 15 seconds and num_iteration = 145 with
chunkSize = 1M, but with Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory()/10, it worked
as without G1GC, took less 1 second and num_iteration = 2, at least on
my Mac.
And just a nits:
1. While you are changing the source you might fix the type at L28
"setUsatgeThreshold" -> "setUsageThreshold"
OK, good catch.
2. Should the @bug annotation contain the test issues? Just asking - I
saw fixes without the test issue number added to the @bug annotation.
Not sure, but remember that once I was suggested to add it.
Thanks,
Shanliang
Cheers,
-JB-
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-6980984/00/
bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6980984
Thanks,
Shanliang
