harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][em64t] build fails
Date Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:50:45 GMT

Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> Egor Pasko wrote:
>> On the 0x223 day of Apache Harmony Geir Magnusson, Jr. wrote:
>>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>>>>> -Xss is the lower stack limit, it doesn't specify the maximum
>>>>>> stack size, doesn't it?
>>>>> What does "lower stack limit" mean? :)  I think that it's the size
>>>>> of the stack, max.
>>>> I thought it is a starting stack size, like -Xms for heap size. Now
>>>> that I searched the web it appears that it is the maximum indeed.
>>> "0" is minimum stack size.
>>>>> I think all you need to do then is set the stack size :
>>>>>    ulimit -s 8192
>>>>> or something.  We should probably do this before each run on linux
>>>>> so that things are well defined and reproducible.
>>>> I think 64-bit SuSE9 is just the only weird distribution which
>>>> doesn't have this limit. In 10th version they fixed this. So ulimit
>>>> -s is not necessary in most cases.
>>> But harmless.  And it makes the test predicable across platforms.  and
>>> if the StackSize test is forked, we can make it small to make it
>>> quick...
>> I know nothing about forking Java processes. Does it make sense?
>> Secondly, fork() is fast regardless of the stack size (stacks are COW).
>>>> I'd still like to have a recursion limit in StackTest but Rana has
>>>> convinced me that no SOE shouldn't mean that test has failed. I'll
>>>> patch it now.
>>> I agree that your fix is utterly bogus :) but we want to test SOE
>>> machinery, so I think that we should set the ulimit to ensure an
>>> environment in which the SOE will happen if DRLVM is working
>>> right. Therefore, we need to set things up such that not getting an
>>> SOE is indeed a failure.
>> What a user would most likely expect on a system with no stack limit?
>> Something like on the other systems with stack limit as in
>> run-anywhere concept. And that would be SOE, not swapping.  So, let's
>> limit the stack by, say, 10M if not set with an option. We can
>> implement the option later.
> Well if you run StackTest on RI on a machine which doesn't have any 
> stack limit imposed by OS you'll still see SOE quite soon. So RI has a 
> limited stack size anyway.

Of course.  The JVM should never take down the whole machine.


View raw message