On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:36:54 GMT, Lin Zang <lz...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I think if you can avoid the 4th argument by just enabling parallel by 
>> default sounds like a good idea. Is there any reason not to use parallel 
>> heap dump? Also, I'm not familiar with the terms "compression backends" and 
>> "active workers". Can you explain them.
>
>> I think if you can avoid the 4th argument by just enabling parallel by 
>> default sounds like a good idea. Is there any reason not to use parallel 
>> heap dump? Also, I'm not familiar with the terms "compression backends" and 
>> "active workers". Can you explain them.
> 
> For parallel heap dump, I think expose the "parallel" option is useful when 
> user want to control the number of threads that works on parallel dumping. 
> One reason is to control the CPU load to not affect too much on other 
> processes on system. 
> 
> The "active workers" is the value that returned by gang->active_workers(). 
> And I think "active workers" is the number of available threads that could be 
> used for parallally working on something. my understanding is that this value 
> could be dynamically changed at runtime, but it is limited by the JVM option 
> "-XX:ParallelGCThreads".
> 
> The "compression backend" is introduced by "gz=" option, it is actually a 
> "backend" that write heap dump data to file, and if there is compression 
> level specified, the "backend" will do compression first and then write to 
> file. The whole "backend" works parallelly, before this PR, the backend 
> thread number is dicided by "active workers".
> 
> With this PR,  the relation of parallel heap iteration threads (parallel 
> dumper),  the file writing threads (compression backend) and the 
> "active_works" is like following:
>           num_of_dumper_threads + num_of_compression_backend = active_workers.
> 
> BRs,
> Lin

Hi All,
As discussed in this PR, it is reasonable to enable parallel heap dump by 
default rather than introducing a new "parallel" option. I would like to close 
the CSR at https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8260424.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2261

Reply via email to