CRR (XS): 7098085: G1: partially-young GCs not initiated under certain circumstances

Tony Printezis tony.printezis at
Thu Oct 6 00:27:15 UTC 2011


Thanks for taking a look at it! See inline.

On 10/5/2011 7:48 PM, Ramki Ramakrishna wrote:
> Hi Tony --
> The changes look good.
> On a side note, was the removal of the bit map clearing a different 
> bug fix,
> or is it somehow related to the issue described in the CR?
> I can see that it is unnecessary and may be even wasteful,
> but it seemed to me to be unrelated to the issue described in the CR,
> unless I am missing something here.

Agreed. I was looking at the abort() method to see what it did and I 
noticed that it was also clearing the bitmap. It's indeed wasteful and, 
in fact, it does not achieve what the comment says it should achieve. 
abort() is only called at the start of a Full GC but, in order to do the 
Full GC safepoint, the concurrent marking workers should have noticed 
that a safepoint was initiated and should have all yielded (otherwise 
the safepoint would have to wait for them). And, the concurrent marking 
thread will actually clear the next bitmap as the last thing it does 
before waiting for the next cycle to start. But, yeah, point taken: I'll 
back out of the concurrentMark.cpp changes and do them as a separate CR.

> As a related (but otherwise orthogonal) matter, it appears as though 
> the idiom:-
>    _sts.join();
>    do_something();
>    do_something_else();
>   _sts_leave();
> might gain from the usual constructor/destructor idiom used
> elsewhere for code that wants to synchronize with other
> parts of the system (in this case safepoints). For example:
>   {
>      SynchronizeWithSafepoints ss();     // or appropriate other name [1]
>      do_something();
>      do_something_else();
>   }

Yes, I do like this idea very much.

> [1] you will have to invent a suitable other name, perhaps 
> DesynchronizeWithSafepoints
> for when you do the reverse, i.e. perform an action outside of the 
> _sts, as happens
> when you are doing those synch barriers amongst the concurrent marking
> threads in case of overflow and restart.

I can't think of a good name off-hand but I'll think about it for a 
bit... (suggestions are welcome!)

> The benefit is that the extra scopes help clearly demarcate
> the code that wants to be in the "critical section", if you
> will, wrt safepoints that will want to synchronize wrt these
> actions.
> (As far as I can tell all invocations of join/leave or stsJoin/stsLeave
> are paired and can become block-structured.)

They should definitely be paired (like lock/unlock pairs). Otherwise, 
we're in trouble. :-)

> The c'tor/d'tor idiom change is of course orthogonal to yr changes
> and would likely want to be a separate CR, if you agree that this
> may be another clean-up worth doing.

Absolutely. So, I take an action item to open two hs23 CRs: one to avoid 
clearing the marking bitmap and one for the ctor/dtor idiom to join / 
leave the STS and vice versa.


> Otherwise looks good.
> -- ramki
> On 10/5/2011 2:21 PM, Tony Printezis wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'd like to get a couple of people to have a look at the following 
>> webrev:
>> The code changes are very minor, most of the added lines are in fact 
>> detailed comments on the changes.
>> I'm going to do testing on two machines overnight, as this is quite 
>> tricky code (even though it doesn't look it). But, I thought I'd open 
>> the changes for code review early as the change is small and some 
>> early feedback, if possible, would be greatly appreciated.
>> Tony
>> PS Correct url? Check. Text actually applies to the CR in the 
>> subject? Check.

More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list