RFR: JDK-8061259: ParNew promotion failed is serialized on a lock

Bengt Rutisson bengt.rutisson at oracle.com
Fri Jan 16 08:42:11 UTC 2015


On 2015-01-15 23:00, Jungwoo Ha wrote:
> I agree with not having a flag. It seems like an obvious improvement.

Sound fair.

Latest patch looks goo to me too.

I'll sponsor this push.

Bengt

>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com 
> <mailto:kim.barrett at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Jan 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Jungwoo Ha <jwha at google.com
>     <mailto:jwha at google.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Apparently, my memory's been swapped out. I meant to use
>     _promotion_failed field.
>     >
>     > diff -r a184ee1d7172
>     src/share/vm/gc_implementation/parNew/parNewGeneration.cpp
>     > --- a/src/share/vm/gc_implementation/parNew/parNewGeneration.cpp
>         Thu Jan 08 12:08:22 2015 -0800
>     > +++ b/src/share/vm/gc_implementation/parNew/parNewGeneration.cpp
>         Thu Jan 15 09:00:05 2015 -0800
>     > @@ -1194,8 +1194,10 @@
>     >          return real_forwardee(old);
>     >      }
>     >
>     > -    new_obj = _next_gen->par_promote(par_scan_state->thread_num(),
>     > -                                       old, m, sz);
>     > +    if (!_promotion_failed) {
>     > +      new_obj =
>     _next_gen->par_promote(par_scan_state->thread_num(),
>     > +                                        old, m, sz);
>     > +    }
>     >
>     >      if (new_obj == NULL) {
>     >        // promotion failed, forward to self
>
>     Yes, this looks right.
>
>     Bengt mentioned protection with a flag from the original proposed
>     change.  I’m not sure there’s a need for a new flag for this
>     version of the change.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20150116/72c4a87d/attachment.html>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list