[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-hotspot-runtime-dev
Subject:    RE: RFR 8220570: Additonal trace when native thread creation fails
From:       "Lindenmaier, Goetz" <goetz.lindenmaier () sap ! com>
Date:       2019-03-26 11:36:44
Message-ID: VI1PR02MB5183627A81053236A0E01979EC5F0 () VI1PR02MB5183 ! eurprd02 ! prod ! outlook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Ralf,
 
looks good to me.

Thanks,
  Goetz.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hotspot-runtime-dev <hotspot-runtime-dev-
> bounces@openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Schmelter, Ralf
> Sent: Donnerstag, 21. März 2019 11:07
> To: David Holmes <david.holmes@oracle.com>; hotspot-runtime-
> dev@openjdk.java.net
> Subject: [CAUTION] RE: RFR 8220570: Additonal trace when native thread
> creation fails
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> here is the new webrev. We now trace at the info level and include the number
> of Java threads.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rschmelter/webrevs/8220570/webrev.2/
> 
> Best regards,
> Ralf
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Holmes <david.holmes@oracle.com>
> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. März 2019 06:51
> To: Schmelter, Ralf <ralf.schmelter@sap.com>; hotspot-runtime-
> dev@openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR 8220570: Additonal trace when native thread creation fails
> 
> Hi Ralf,
> 
> On 19/03/2019 8:14 pm, Schmelter, Ralf wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > what about lowering the log level to info? Would you think the amount of
> detail would be OK for that? And if yes, would the first implementation (the
> one with the lengthy output) be OK, since it saves quiet a lot of program code?
> 
> The original version at "info" would be acceptable to me.
> 
> But as Goetz suggested, adding a small amount of additional detail to
> the existing warning (e.g. number of running threads) is also okay.
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> -----
> 
> > Best regards,
> > Ralf
> >

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]