RFR (S): 8201326: Renaming ThreadLocalAllocationBuffer end to current_end

Karen Kinnear karen.kinnear at oracle.com
Mon Apr 9 20:16:34 UTC 2018


JC,

So I am the one who suggested that you ask the GC folks if they were ok with name change going in in advance,
since the merging includes a number of files in a rapidly changing repository. Thank you for pointing out the risks.

I am going to assume that this is a review for the approach, not the final source code review because:
- I do not see the full set of tests run - which you would coordinate with your sponsor

If the GC team is ok with the approach and you have all the tests passing - please send the actual code review request to
hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net. We use the team aliases for design consulting. We use the larger alias before anything goes in.

See below ...

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 1:24 PM, JC Beyler <jcbeyler at google.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Small pre-amble to this request:
> In my work to try to get a heap sampler in OpenJDK (via JEP 331 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171119>), I'm trying to reduce the footprint of my change so that the integration can be easier. I was told that generally a JEP webrev should be feature complete and go in at-once. However, with the change touching quite a bit of various code pieces, I was trying to figure out what could be separated as not "part of the feature".
> 
> I asked around and said that perhaps a solution would be to cut up the renaming of TLAB's end field that I do in that webrev. Because I'm renaming a field in TLAB used by various backends for that work, I have to update every architecture dependent code to reflect it.
> 
> I entirely understand that perhaps this is not in the habits and very potentially might not be the way things are generally done. If so, I apologize and let me know if you would not want this to go in separately :)
> 
> Final note: there is still a chance JEP-331 does not go in. If it does not, we can leave the new name in place or I'll happily revert it. I can even create an issue to track this if that makes it easier for all.
> 
> End of the pre-amble.
> 
> 
> The 33-line change webrev in question is here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8201326/webrev.00/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8201326/webrev.00/>
> 
> I fixed all the architectures and JVMCI and ran a few sanity tests to ensure I had not missed anything.
> 
> Thanks for your help and I hope this is not too much trouble,
> Jc
> 
> Ps: there is a graal change that needs to happen but I was not sure who/where to ask about it. I was told it could happen in a separate webrev. Can anyone point me to the right direction? Should it just be hotspot-compiler-dev?
Can I assume the graal change is not related to 8201326, but part of the 8171119 heap sampler collection email thread? That already
includes the compiler team, so you should be set there.

thanks,
Karen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20180409/22de2ccf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list