On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:20:25 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> Marked as reviewed by rehn (Reviewer).
>
> Many thanks @robehn, @shipilev and @dholmes-ora !
>
> Feels good to have this finally in.
@tstuefe unfortunately the test is failing intermittently in our CI. I will
file a bug and assign it to
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:26:21 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 42 additional
>> commits si
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:03:24 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:03:24 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:03:24 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 06:43:15 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Bikeshed Trim log lines
>
> Test needs a fix for non-Linux.
@dholmes-ora Are you okay with this final version? Did yo
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:03:24 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:45:04 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> Realized that in production, we would like to see why trimmer might be
>>> late. I think this would look even better:
>>> [trimnative-shipilev-2.patch](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/files/12043977/trimnative-shipilev-2.patch)
>>
>>
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 09:52:04 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 06:43:15 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Bikeshed Trim log lines
>
> Test needs a fix for non-Linux.
Hi @dholmes-ora, @shipilev,
New version:
- added the lo
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:45:04 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > > Realized that in production, we would like to see why trimmer might be
> > > late. I think this would look even better:
> > > [trimnative-shipilev-2.patch](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/files/12043977/trimnative-shipilev-2.patch)
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 05:28:15 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> > Realized that in production, we would like to see why trimmer might be
> > late. I think this would look even better:
> > [trimnative-shipilev-2.patch](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/files/12043977/trimnative-shipilev-2.patch)
>
> I th
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:56:56 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 05:36:28 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Idk. Its all solvable, its just code I guess. Maybe for a later RFE?
> Integrating the dcmd with periodic trimming may have one pro, that is
> preventing customers from shooting themselves in the foot who issue the dcmd
> via script and
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:56:56 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 05:02:34 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Bikeshed Trim log lines
>
> test/hotspot/gtest/runtime/test_trim_native.cpp line 44:
>
>> 42: NativeHeapTrimmer
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 04:47:23 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Bikeshed Trim log lines
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNativeHeap.cpp line 83:
>
>> 81:
>> 82: // in seconds
>>
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:56:56 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:51:09 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Want to replace "Native heap trimmer" with "Periodic native heap trimmer"
> too? Would be clear that we are suspending only the periodic one. The DCmd
> command would still be accepted and acted upon. Thinking about it, maybe we
> sho
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:55:49 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Realized that in production, we would like to see why trimmer might be late.
> I think this would look even better:
> [trimnative-shipilev-2.patch](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/files/12043977/trimnative-shipilev-2.patch)
I thought a
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:56:56 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:56:56 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:08:03 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:02:08 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Yes, the only thing left is to bikeshed the logging statements a little.
Okay done.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14781#issuecomment-1634730982
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:53:36 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:53:36 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:47:47 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 32 additional
>> comm
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:42:28 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> No, since `_num_trims_performed` is the number of trims performed during the
>> lifetime of the JVM. It should probably bumped to 64-bit, now that we have
>> millisecond intervals.
>
> Yeah, my patch, see the link above, does it as `u
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:40:47 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNativeHeap.cpp line 47:
>>
>>> 45:
>>> 46: // Statistics
>>> 47: unsigned _num_trims_performed;
>>
>> Sorry for the nit, but this is `uint16_t` too then, for consistency?
>
> No, since `_num_trims_perfo
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:50:15 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 32 additional
>> comm
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:53:36 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:53:36 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:04:33 GMT, Ashutosh Mehra wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 32 additional
>> commit
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:53:36 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> pre
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:38:50 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> But then we have a problem for larger trim intervals. Loosing one or
>> multiple trim attempts because a safepoint happened to happen hurts if the
>> interval is e.g. 5 minutes.
>>
>> We could either wait for `MIN2(TrimNativeHeapInte
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:01:32 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:27:44 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNativeHeap.cpp line 106:
>>
>>> 104: ml.wait(wait_ms);
>>> 105: } else if (at_or_nearing_safepoint()) {
>>> 106: ml.wait(safepoint_poll_ms);
>>
>> OK, so here is a little pr
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:54:11 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add test with 1ms trim interval
>> - No need for atomics
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNativeHeap.cpp line
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:37:18 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add test with 1ms trim interval
>> - No need for atomics
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/globals.hpp line 1990:
>
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:06:23 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add test with 1ms trim interval
>> - No need for atomics
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNativeHeap.cpp line
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:01:32 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:36:22 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:38:34 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> (just noticed the patch adds +666 lines, bad sign, I should add another line
> somewhere).
It also deletes 2 lines so that makes it 664 😉
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14781#issuecomment-1625515410
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:38:56 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> last cleanups and shade feedback
>
> The description says `-XX:GCTrimNativeHeapInterval= (defaults to
> 60)`, but the c
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 18:50:45 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> last cleanups and shade feedback
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNative.cpp line 137:
>
>> 135: os::size_change_t
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 04:42:53 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> I had an initial look at this. Seems okay in principle. The
> naming/terminology needs some updating IMO: "trimNative" doesn't convey
> enough information, please use "trimNativeHeap". "trim" for logging tag is
> also too non-descript.
>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 19:04:46 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNative.cpp line 149:
>>
>>> 147: return true;
>>> 148: } else {
>>> 149: log_info(trim)("Trim native heap (no details)");
>>
>> Consistency: `Trim native heap: complete, no details`.
>
> I
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 16:57:56 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> last cleanups and shade feedback
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNative.cpp line 78:
>
>> 76: static constexpr int
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 16:49:47 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> last cleanups and shade feedback
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNative.cpp line 42:
>
>> 40: class NativeTrimmerThre
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:35:12 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - seconds->ms
>> - rename pause, unpause -> suspend, resume
>> - fix ChunkPool::needs_cleaning
>
> src/hotspot/share
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:25:03 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 16:14:20 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> last cleanups and shade feedback
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/trimNative.cpp line 149:
>
>> 147: return t
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:25:03 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:25:03 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:25:03 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:25:03 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:25:03 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 13:01:15 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> prev
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:20:25 GMT, Johan Sjölen wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> previ
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
> discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
>
>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 12:20:10 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/memory/arena.cpp line 105:
>>
>>> 103: }
>>> 104: return true;
>>> 105: }
>>
>> Something seems wrong here? Having only empty pools means that `::prune()`
>> is a no-op.
>
> Thanks for catching this.
All test
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 10:58:01 GMT, Johan Sjölen wrote:
>> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I
>> closed https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated
>> too much comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see
>> previ
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 06:54:22 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 10:47:25 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> About Pause in all VM ops, an alternative would be to just check in the
> trimmer if we are at safepoint, and if yes treat it as pause. I'll see if
> that's easier (I'm worried about pulling a mutex or atomic increasing the
> pauser varia
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 10:08:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> I don't think the comments from my yesterday's review were addressed :) There
> are some old comments (marked with `(Outdated)`, helpfully), but some are
> new. Please take a look at them?
Of course, sorry. Seems I missed most of them.
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 06:54:22 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 06:54:22 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
>
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:20:25 GMT, Johan Sjölen wrote:
> > And app's malloc load can fluctuate wildly, with temporary spikes and long
> > idle periods.
>
> Are you talking about allocations into native memory that a Java application
> does on its own accord and not as a consequence of the JVM do
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 06:54:22 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
> comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
>
This is a continuation of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085. I closed
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10085 because it had accumulated too much
comment history and got confusing. For a history of this issue, see previous
discussions [1] and the comment section of 10085.
---
82 matches
Mail list logo
