Hi Bob, David, Mandy, and Serguei,
Thank you for reviewing this change!
Best regards,
Daniil
On 12/11/19, 9:21 AM, "Bob Vandette" <bob.vande...@oracle.com> wrote:
Yes, I defer to Mandy on the best way to express the various Java
exceptions.
I’m ok with the changes.
Thanks for getting this done for JDK14!
Bob.
> On Dec 11, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Daniil Titov <daniil.x.ti...@oracle.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Serguei,
>
> Thank you for your comments. I will correct this nits before pushing the
changes.
>
> Hi Bob and David,
>
>> [Mandy Chung]
>>> I reviewed Metrics and Subsystem in this version.
>>> I don't need to see a new webrev.
>
> As I understood Mandy finished reviewing this fix. Just wanted to confirm
with you if you are okey with that version of the fix (webrev.06) ?
>
> Mach5 testing: tier1-tier6 and open/test/hotspot/jtreg/containers/docker
tests passed.
>
> Thank you,
> Daniil
>
>
>
> On 12/9/19, 6:02 PM, "serguei.spit...@oracle.com"
<serguei.spit...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniil,
>
> It is not a full review, just some minor comments.
> In fact, I do not see real problems yet.
>
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8226575/webrev.05/src/jdk.management/unix/classes/com/sun/management/internal/OperatingSystemImpl.java.frames.html
>
> 55 public long getTotalSwapSpaceSize() {
> 56 if (containerMetrics != null) {
> 57 long limit =
containerMetrics.getMemoryAndSwapLimit();
> 58 // The memory limit metrics is not available if JVM
> runs on Linux host ( not in a docker container)
> 59 // or if a docker container was started without
> specifying a memory limit ( without '--memory='
> 60 // Docker option). In latter case there is no limit
on
> how much memory the container can use and
> 61 // it can use as much memory as the host's OS allows.
> 62 long memLimit = containerMetrics.getMemoryLimit();
> 63 if (limit >= 0 && memLimit >= 0) {
> 64 return limit - memLimit;
> 65 }
> 66 }
> 67 return getTotalSwapSpaceSize0();
> 68 }
>
> Unneeded space after brackets '('.
> Do we need to check if the (limit - memLimit) value is negative?
> The same question is for getFreeSwapSpaceSize():
> memSwapLimit - memLimit - (memSwapUsage - memUsage)
>
> and getFreeMemorySize():
> 101 return limit - usage;
>
> 81 // If this happens just retry the loop
for
> a few iterations
>
> Dot is missed at the end of comment.
>
>
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8226575/webrev.05/test/hotspot/jtreg/containers/docker/CheckOperatingSystemMXBean.java.html
>
> 34 System.out.println(String.format("Runtime.availableProcessors:
> %d", Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors()));
> 35
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getAvailableProcessors:
> %d", osBean.getAvailableProcessors()));
> 36
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getTotalMemorySize:
> %d", osBean.getTotalMemorySize()));
> 37
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getTotalPhysicalMemorySize:
> %d", osBean.getTotalPhysicalMemorySize()));
> 38
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreeMemorySize:
> %d", osBean.getFreeMemorySize()));
> 39
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreePhysicalMemorySize:
> %d", osBean.getFreePhysicalMemorySize()));
> 40
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getTotalSwapSpaceSize:
> %d", osBean.getTotalSwapSpaceSize()));
> 41
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreeSwapSpaceSize:
> %d", osBean.getFreeSwapSpaceSize()));
> 42
> System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getCpuLoad:
%f",
> osBean.getCpuLoad()));
> 43
>
System.out.println(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getSystemCpuLoad:
> %f", osBean.getSystemCpuLoad()));
>
>
> To make the above lines a little bit shorter I'd suggest to define
a
> log() method like this:
> private static void log(String msg) ( System.out.println(msg(; }
>
> 34 log(String.format("Runtime.availableProcessors: %d",
> Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors()));
> 35 log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getAvailableProcessors:
> %d", osBean.getAvailableProcessors()));
> 36 log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getTotalMemorySize:
%d",
> osBean.getTotalMemorySize()));
> 37
> log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getTotalPhysicalMemorySize:
> %d", osBean.getTotalPhysicalMemorySize()));
> 38 log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreeMemorySize: %d",
> osBean.getFreeMemorySize()));
> 39
> log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreePhysicalMemorySize:
%d",
> osBean.getFreePhysicalMemorySize()));
> 40 log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getTotalSwapSpaceSize:
> %d", osBean.getTotalSwapSpaceSize()));
> 41 log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreeSwapSpaceSize:
> %d", osBean.getFreeSwapSpaceSize()));
> 42 log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getCpuLoad:
%f",
> osBean.getCpuLoad()));
> 43 log(String.format("OperatingSystemMXBean.getSystemCpuLoad: %f",
> osBean.getSystemCpuLoad()));
>
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
>
> On 12/6/19 17:41, Daniil Titov wrote:
>> Hi David, Mandy, and Bob,
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing this fix.
>>
>> Please review a new version of the fix [1] that includes the following
changes comparing to the previous version of the webrev ( webrev.04)
>> 1. The changes in Javadoc made in the webrev.04 comparing to webrev.03
and to CSR [3] were discarded.
>> 2. The implementation of methods getFreeMemorySize, getTotalMemorySize,
getFreeSwapSpaceSize and getTotalSwapSpaceSize
>> was also reverted to webrev.03 version that return host's values if
the metrics are unavailable or cannot be properly read.
>> I would like to mention that currently the native implementation
of these methods de-facto may return -1 at some circumstances,
>> but I agree that the changes proposed in the previous version of
the webrev increase such probability.
>> I filed the follow-up issue [4] as Mandy suggested.
>> 3. The legacy methods were renamed as David suggested.
>>
>>
>>> src/jdk.management/linux/native/libmanagement_ext/UnixOperatingSystem.c
>>> ! static int initialized=1;
>>>
>>> Am I reading this right that the code currently fails to actually do
the
>>> initialization because of this ???
>> Yes, currently the code fails to do the initialization but it was
unnoticed since method
>> get_cpuload_internal(...) was never called for a specific CPU, the first
parameter "which"
>> was always -1.
>>
>>> test/hotspot/jtreg/containers/docker/CheckOperatingSystemMXBean.java
>>>
>>> System.out.println(String.format(...)
>>>
>>> Why not simply
>>>
>>> System.out.printf(..)
>> As I tried explain it earlier it would make the tests unstable.
>> System.out.printf(...) just delegates the call to System.out.format(...)
that doesn't emit the string atomically.
>> Instead it parses the format string into a list of FormatString objects
and then iterates over the list.
>> As a result, the other traces occasionally got printed between these
iterations and break the pattern the test is expected to find
>> in the output.
>>
>> For example, here is the sample of a such output that has the trace
message printed between " OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreePhysicalMemorySize:"
>> and "1030762496".
>>
>> <skipped>
>> [0.304s][trace][os,container] Memory Usage is: 42983424
>> OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreeMemorySize: 1030758400
>> [0.305s][trace][os,container] Path to /memory.usage_in_bytes is
/sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.usage_in_bytes
>> [0.305s][trace][os,container] Memory Usage is: 42979328
>> [0.306s][trace][os,container] Path to /memory.usage_in_bytes is
/sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.usage_in_bytes
>> OperatingSystemMXBean.getFreePhysicalMemorySize:
[0.306s][trace][os,container] Memory Usage is: 42975232
>> 1030762496
>> OperatingSystemMXBean.getTotalSwapSpaceSize: 499122176
>>
>> <skipped>
>> java.lang.RuntimeException:
'OperatingSystemMXBean\\.getFreePhysicalMemorySize: [1-9][0-9]+' missing from
stdout/stderr
>>
>> at
jdk.test.lib.process.OutputAnalyzer.shouldMatch(OutputAnalyzer.java:306)
>> at
TestMemoryAwareness.testOperatingSystemMXBeanAwareness(TestMemoryAwareness.java:151)
>> at TestMemoryAwareness.main(TestMemoryAwareness.java:73)
>> at
java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>> at
java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
>> at
java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
>> at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:564)
>> at
com.sun.javatest.regtest.agent.MainActionHelper$AgentVMRunnable.run(MainActionHelper.java:298)
>> at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:832)
>>
>> Testing: Mach5 tier1-tier3 and open/test/hotspot/jtreg/containers/docker
tests passed. Tier4-tier6 tests are still running.
>>
>> [1] Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8226575/webrev.05
>> [2] Jira issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8226575
>> [3] CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8228428
>> [4] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8235522
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Daniil
>>
>> On 12/6/19, 1:38 PM, "Mandy Chung" <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/6/19 5:59 AM, Bob Vandette wrote:
>>>> On Dec 6, 2019, at 2:49 AM, David Holmes<david.hol...@oracle.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
src/jdk.management/share/classes/com/sun/management/OperatingSystemMXBean.java
>>>>
>>>> The changes to allow for a return of -1 are somewhat more extensive
than we have previously discussed. These methods previously were (per the spec)
guaranteed to return some (assumably) meaningful value but now they are
effectively allowed to fail by returning -1. No existing code is expecting to
have to handle a return of -1 so I see this as a significant compatibility
issue.
>>
>> I thought that the error case we are referring to is limit == 0 which
>> indicates something unexpected goes wrong. So the compatibility
concern
>> should be low. This is very specific to Metrics implementation for
>> cgroup v1 and let me know if I'm wrong.
>>
>>>> Surely there must always be some information available from the
operating environment? I see from the impl file:
>>>>
>>>> // the host data, value 0 indicates that something went wrong while
the metric was read and
>>>> // in this case we return "information unavailable" code -1.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree with this. If the container metrics are messed up
somehow we should either fallback to the host value or else abort with some
kind of exception. Returning -1 is not an option here IMO.
>>> I agree with David on the compatibility concern. I originally thought
that -1 was already a specified return for all of these methods.
>>> Since the 0 return failure from the Metrics API should only occur if
one of the cgroup subsystems is not enabled while others
>>> are, I’d suggest we keep Daniil’s original logic to fall back to the
host value since a disabled subsystem is equivalent to no
>>> limits.
>>>
>>
>> It's important to consider carefully if the monitoring API indicates
an
>> error vs unavailable and an application should continue to run when
the
>> monitoring system fails to get the metrics.
>>
>> There are several choices to report "something goes wrong" scenarios
>> (should unlikely happen???):
>> 1. fall back to a random positive value (e.g. host value)
>> 2. return a negative value
>> 3. throw an exception
>>
>> #3 is not an option as the application is not expecting this. For
#2,
>> the application can filter bad values if desirable.
>>
>> I'm okay if you want to file a JBS issue to follow up and thoroughly
>> look at the cases that the metrics are unavailable and the cases when
>> fails to obtain.
>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> test/hotspot/jtreg/containers/docker/CheckOperatingSystemMXBean.java
>>>>
>>>> System.out.println(String.format(...)
>>>>
>>>> Why not simply
>>>>
>>>> System.out.printf(..)
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>
>> or simply (as I commented [1])
>> System.out.format
>>
>> Mandy
>> [1]
>>
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2019-December/029930.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
