RFR: 8213890: Implementation of JEP 344: Abortable Mixed Collections for G1

Stefan Johansson stefan.johansson at oracle.com
Fri Nov 30 11:29:10 UTC 2018


Hi again,

Found a small issue with using the wrong phase for a JFR event, here are 
updated webrevs for the fix.

Full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8213890/04/
Inc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8213890/03b-04/

Thanks,
Stefan

On 2018-11-28 10:30, Stefan Johansson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018-11-27 22:31, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 15:41 -0500, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schatzl <
>>>> thomas.schatzl at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 15:19 -0500, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Stefan Johansson <
>>>>>> stefan.johansson at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the review Kim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two new webrevs, I'll let you decide which way to go, I kind of
>>>>>> prefer version b.
>>>>>> Full a: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8213890/03a/
>>>>>> Inc a:  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8213890/02-03a/
>>>>>> Full b: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8213890/03b/
>>>>>> Inc b:  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjohanss/8213890/02-03b/
>>>>>
>>>>> Version b looks good to me.
>>>>> (I skimmed version a, but I also preferred b.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   - in G1OopStarChunkedList::push, the increase of _used_memory can
>>>> be moved out of the if- and else-blocks. :)
>>>
>>> I don’t think so.  _used_memory shouldn’t be increased for the
>>> (implicit) case of having an existing list that isn’t full.
>>
>> Okay, my fault. Looks good as is.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    Thomas
>>
> 
> Thanks for the review guys, let's go with version b then.
> 
> I'll continue running perf, functional and stress testing on this until 
> the JEP gets targeted.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefan
> 


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list