RFR: 8142976: TraceClassInitialization has been reimplemented with Unified Logging. (original) (raw)

Max Ockner max.ockner at oracle.com
Mon Nov 30 22:46:24 UTC 2015

I do not know what "driver" means in the test, but I have found that it is important. The test does not work without it. Does anyone know what it means and why it is suddenly important?

Max

On 11/24/2015 7:17 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:

Hi Max, This looks mostly good: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/src/share/vm/classfile/verifier.cpp.udiff.html

In function logendverification, the indentation is wrong. It should be 2 and the end } should be in column 1. You didn't mention that we decided that if you specify VerboseVerification and -Xlog:classinit that you'll get the same message twice. This is because the logs can go to different places. When VerboseVerification is converted to UL, the logging statements will be more compact. Can you fix the indentation of this line too? *!tty->printcr("Fail over class verification to old verifier for: %s", klassName);* http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/test/logging/BadMap50.jasm.html This has the wrong copyright header. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/test/logging/ClassInitializationTest.java.html 30 * @run driver ClassInitializationTest Is "driver" new? You don't need to include these: 34 import java.lang.ref.WeakReference; 35 import java.lang.reflect.Method; Otherwise, I think this looks good. Coleen On 11/24/15 4:27 PM, Max Ockner wrote: New webrev @ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/ Fixed everything that I said I would fix below.

On 11/24/2015 3:40 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote: Hi,

Looks mostly good, just a few comments: verifier.cpp - at line 118 (the first "Verification for" line), it should just be "print", not "printcr". Thanks. Fixed, though I wonder how much it matters. - between lines 194 and 195, I think you need a ResourceMark for the LogHandle stream. The ResourceMark is defined already, it just isn't part of the diffs because it was already there. - in the sections starting at lines 179 and 608, I appreciate that you were minimizing the number of lines, but I think it's a bad idea to have duplicates of the logged strings. Do you think you could define the strings outside of the logging and pass it to both functions? Another possible solution would be to make a function to do that with a signature like void logmultiple(bool enabled1, outputStream* st1, bool enabled2, outputStream* st2, char* msg); that could do this in a more formalized manner. A function like this could be useful for other similar situations as well while we're converting flags one by one. Or what are your thoughts on that? Two reasons why I don't think we should do that. (1) We don't want to evaluate format strings unless something is being logged. I guess if you can find a way to avoid doing this while still making the code look nicer then that is OK. I think it would be just as bad to write extra lines of code just to ensure that a short string isn't duplicated. (2) We do not guarantee that these two messages will always be the same. A conversation I had with Coleen led me to believe we should keep the messages separate. - I think the reordered nesting makes sense. ClassInitializationTest.java - nit: can you move the ");"s from the process builder lines onto the lines before them? OK. Thanks, Rachel On 11/24/2015 3:09 PM, Max Ockner wrote: Hello, Please review my new unified logging code:

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8142976 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit01/src/share/vm/classfile/verifier.cpp.cdiff.html Summary: -XX:+TraceClassInitialization logging has been reimplemented using unified logging under the classinit tag. In the segment with recursive verification (see verifier.cpp) I reordered the nested if statement to check wasrecursivelyverified() first. I valued clean code over potentially avoiding a function call to wasrecursivelyverified. What do you think? Tested with: jtreg hotspot tests new jtreg test for classinit tag performance testing with refworkload. Thanks, Max

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list