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
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
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
> 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.
>
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
