christian.thalinger at oracle.com
Tue Mar 15 20:57:58 UTC 2016
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:14 PM, kirk.pepperdine at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>>> I’ve just been visiting the work done
>> What work are you referring to?
> The work that split code cache but more specifically the ObjectName(s) given to the supporting MemoryPoolMXBean(s). The names that I have showing up are java.lang:name=CodeHeap 'non-nmethods',type=MemoryPool, java.lang:name=CodeHeap 'non-profiled nmethods',type=MemoryPool, and java.lang:name=CodeHeap 'profiled nmethods',type=MemoryPool. I was expecting to see java.lang:name=CodeCache 'non-nmethods',type=MemoryPool as that would have followed the establish naming convention. It’s not that this is a huge issue, it obviously isn't and I appreciate the very nice summaries of the work done that were made in reply to this question. I was just interested in if the naming was a conscience decision and if so what motivated it.
The short answer is that there is only one CodeCache which consists of a number of CodeHeaps.
> Thank you to all who responded.
More information about the hotspot-dev