harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][em64t] build fails
Date Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:38:09 GMT
Egor Pasko wrote:
> On the 0x223 day of Apache Harmony 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.
> 
> can anything stop us from doing the same?

I don't think that anything does, we just need to agree on a reasonable 
stack size default. On RI and BEA it seems to be different, StackTest 
gives pretty different results.

-- 
Gregory


Mime
View raw message