review request (S) 6866585 debug code in ciObjectFactory too slow
Keith.McGuigan at Sun.COM
Thu Aug 6 11:46:37 PDT 2009
Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Would it be possible to put the check into the GC epilogue?
>>>> Probably not, since ciEnv guys are not statically allocated and not
>>>> easy to enumerate (one per active compile-thread task). I guess I
>>>> do like the idea of checking a GC tick counter from the CI, to
>>>> throttle the paranoid check. Best of all would be to have some
>>>> explicit linkage from the GC epilogue code to the CI, which somehow
>>>> documents and enforces the order invariance. You can see why this
>>>> is awkward: It is an invariant shared by the CI and the GC.
>> Yes, i agree, if it's one per active compile task, may be it's best to
>> yr strategy of eliding the check unless the full gc count changes.
> John, couldn't this strategy allow us to reunify the handling of oops
> into a single table instead of needing the NonPermOop stuff? If we
> simply re-sort the table when needed that code becomes simple again. It
> also makes us impervious to reordering concerns.
Would that also be a step towards getting some of the stuff (namely
symbols) out of perm gen? There's more to it than that, of course, but
the ordering constraint by the compiler was one of the reasons for
keeping them in perm gen.
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev