Re: RFR: 8324539: Do not use LFS64 symbols in JDK libs [v7]

2024-02-06 Thread Matthias Baesken
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:15:44 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote: > > Thanks for the AIX related effort ; I put it again into our internal > build/test queue. With the latest commit the build again fails on AIX with this error /jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/libnio/ch/UnixFileDispatcherImpl.c:381:27:

Integrated: 8298046: Fix hidden but significant trailing whitespace in properties files for serviceability code

2024-02-06 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:42:57 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > According to [the > specification](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/19/docs/api/java.base/java/util/Properties.html#load(java.io.Reader)) > trailing whitespaces in the values of properties files are (somewhat > surprisingly) ac

Re: RFR: 8324539: Do not use LFS64 symbols in JDK libs [v9]

2024-02-06 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
> Similar to [JDK-8318696](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8318696), we > should use -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, and not -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE in the JDK > native libraries. Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Also

Re: RFR: 8324539: Do not use LFS64 symbols in JDK libs [v8]

2024-02-06 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:06:21 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Similar to [JDK-8318696](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8318696), we >> should use -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, and not -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE in the JDK >> native libraries. > > Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request increme

Re: RFR: JDK-8320005 : Allow loading of shared objects with .a extension on AIX [v15]

2024-02-06 Thread Suchismith Roy
> J2SE agent does not start and throws error when it tries to find the shared > library ibm_16_am. > After searching for ibm_16_am.so ,the jvm agent throws and error as dll_load > fails.It fails to identify the shared library ibm_16_am.a shared archive file > on AIX. > Hence we are providing a f

Re: RFR: JDK-8320005 : Allow loading of shared objects with .a extension on AIX [v15]

2024-02-06 Thread Martin Doerr
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:45:12 GMT, Suchismith Roy wrote: >> J2SE agent does not start and throws error when it tries to find the shared >> library ibm_16_am. >> After searching for ibm_16_am.so ,the jvm agent throws and error as dll_load >> fails.It fails to identify the shared library ibm_16_am.

Re: RFR: JDK-8320005 : Allow loading of shared objects with .a extension on AIX [v15]

2024-02-06 Thread Joachim Kern
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:45:12 GMT, Suchismith Roy wrote: >> J2SE agent does not start and throws error when it tries to find the shared >> library ibm_16_am. >> After searching for ibm_16_am.so ,the jvm agent throws and error as dll_load >> fails.It fails to identify the shared library ibm_16_am.

Re: RFR: 8325109: Sort method modifiers in canonical order

2024-02-06 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:57:04 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is a follow-up on > [JDK-8324053](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324053). I have run the > bin/blessed-modifier-order.sh on the entire code base, and manually checked > the result. I have reverted all but these trivial and

Re: RFR: 8308745: ObjArrayKlass::allocate_objArray_klass may call into java while holding a lock

2024-02-06 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 05:22:24 GMT, David Holmes wrote: >> This change uses a claim token to allocate multi dimensional arrays rather >> than holding MultiArray_lock around metaspace allocation. We can't hold a >> mutex around metaspace allocation because it can create an OOM object and it >> ca

Withdrawn: 8308745: ObjArrayKlass::allocate_objArray_klass may call into java while holding a lock

2024-02-06 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:57:23 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote: > This change uses a claim token to allocate multi dimensional arrays rather > than holding MultiArray_lock around metaspace allocation. We can't hold a > mutex around metaspace allocation because it can create an OOM object and it >

Re: RFR: 8322476: Remove GrowableArray C-Heap version, replace usages with GrowableArrayCHeap

2024-02-06 Thread Johan Sjölen
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:59:05 GMT, Emanuel Peter wrote: > [JDK-8247755](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8247755) introduced the > `GrowableArrayCHeap`. This duplicates the current C-Heap allocation > capability in `GrowableArray`. I now remove that from `GrowableArray` and > move all usages

Re: RFR: 8324539: Do not use LFS64 symbols in JDK libs [v9]

2024-02-06 Thread Matthias Baesken
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:18:14 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Similar to [JDK-8318696](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8318696), we >> should use -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, and not -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE in the JDK >> native libraries. > > Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request increme

Re: RFR: 8324539: Do not use LFS64 symbols in JDK libs [v9]

2024-02-06 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:01:33 GMT, Sam James wrote: >> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Also fix fstatvfs on AIX > > make/modules/jdk.hotspot.agent/Lib.gmk line 31: > >> 29: >> 30: ifeq ($(call isTargetO

Re: RFR: 8323681: SA PointerFinder code should support G1 [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Thomas Schatzl
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:28:24 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote: >> This PR adds G1 support to PointerFinder/PointerLocation. Previously we only >> had SerialGC support. Previously for G1 addresses SA would only report that >> the address is "In unknown section of Java heap" with no other details. Now >>

Re: RFR: 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated capabilities

2024-02-06 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:47:22 GMT, Sebastian Lövdahl wrote: > 8307977: jcmd and jstack broken for target processes running with elevated > capabilities Hi, Yes makes sense, this seems like an oversight that we were not consistent with the path. Does CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE cause any issues for c

Re: RFR: 8325180: Rename jvmti_FollowRefObjects.h [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Kim Barrett
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:49:22 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote: >> Kim Barrett 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 three additional >> commi

Re: RFR: 8325180: Rename jvmti_FollowRefObjects.h [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Kim Barrett
> Please review this trivial change that renames the file > test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jvmti/jvmti_FollowRefObjects.h > to jvmti_FollowRefObjects.hpp, and replaces uses of NULL in the file. > > Testing: mach5 tier1 Kim Barrett has updated the pull request with a new target base due t

Integrated: 8325180: Rename jvmti_FollowRefObjects.h

2024-02-06 Thread Kim Barrett
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:34:19 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote: > Please review this trivial change that renames the file > test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jvmti/jvmti_FollowRefObjects.h > to jvmti_FollowRefObjects.hpp, and replaces uses of NULL in the file. > > Testing: mach5 tier1 This pull reque

Re: RFR: 8323681: SA PointerFinder code should support G1 [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Kevin Walls
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:28:24 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote: >> This PR adds G1 support to PointerFinder/PointerLocation. Previously we only >> had SerialGC support. Previously for G1 addresses SA would only report that >> the address is "In unknown section of Java heap" with no other details. Now >>

Re: RFR: 8323681: SA PointerFinder code should support G1 [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Chris Plummer
> This PR adds G1 support to PointerFinder/PointerLocation. Previously we only > had SerialGC support. Previously for G1 addresses SA would only report that > the address is "In unknown section of Java heap" with no other details. Now > it provides details for G1 addresses. Here are some example

Re: RFR: 8323681: SA PointerFinder code should support G1 [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Chris Plummer
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:39:42 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > Trivia on the output formatting: For serial, an object not in a tlab, without > verbose, I think it prints "In heap new generation:" and then nothing else. > The ":" leaves you hanging thinking it should introduce something else, so > there

RFR: 8325347: Rename native_thread.h

2024-02-06 Thread Kim Barrett
Please review this trivial change that renames the file test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/native/native_thread.h to native_thread.hpp. and replaces uses of NULL in that file. Testing: mach5 tier1 - Commit messages: - rename NULLs in native_thread.hpp - rename native_thread.h

Re: RFR: 8325347: Rename native_thread.h

2024-02-06 Thread Coleen Phillimore
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 22:08:18 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote: > Please review this trivial change that renames the file > test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/native/native_thread.h > to native_thread.hpp. and replaces uses of NULL in that file. > > Testing: mach5 tier1 Agree this looks trivial, if te

Re: RFR: 8325347: Rename native_thread.h

2024-02-06 Thread Leonid Mesnik
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 22:08:18 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote: > Please review this trivial change that renames the file > test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/native/native_thread.h > to native_thread.hpp. and replaces uses of NULL in that file. > > Testing: mach5 tier1 Marked as reviewed by lmesnik (

Integrated: 8325347: Rename native_thread.h

2024-02-06 Thread Kim Barrett
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 22:08:18 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote: > Please review this trivial change that renames the file > test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/native/native_thread.h > to native_thread.hpp. and replaces uses of NULL in that file. > > Testing: mach5 tier1 This pull request has now been

Re: RFR: 8325347: Rename native_thread.h

2024-02-06 Thread Kim Barrett
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 22:30:18 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote: >> Please review this trivial change that renames the file >> test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/native/native_thread.h >> to native_thread.hpp. and replaces uses of NULL in that file. >> >> Testing: mach5 tier1 > > Agree this looks

Re: RFR: 8313710: jcmd: typo in the documentation of JFR.start and JFR.dump [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Taizo Kurashige
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 05:07:13 GMT, David Holmes wrote: >> @dholmes-ora @egahlin >> >> I'm sorry that my slow response has prolonged this issue. I created a >> subtask and modified the source. If possible, please review them. > > Thanks @kurashige23 , the manpage subtask will be handled by someon

Re: RFR: 8247972: incorrect implementation of JVM TI GetObjectMonitorUsage [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Serguei Spitsyn
> The implementation of the JVM TI `GetObjectMonitorUsage` does not match the > spec. > The function returns the following structure: > > > typedef struct { > jthread owner; > jint entry_count; > jint waiter_count; > jthread* waiters; > jint notify_waiter_count; > jthread