CMS parallel initial mark

Hiroshi Yamauchi yamauchi at google.com
Fri Jun 7 19:08:33 UTC 2013


> > > If the old serial version (old code) is kept, this condition needs to
> be
> > > adapted, as data structures within the if-block started at that line
> are
> > > only used in the parallel case.
> >
> > Where talking about this like
> >
> >    if ((CMSParallelRemarkEnabled && CMSParallelSurvivorRemarkEnabled) ||
> > CMSParallelInitialMarkEnabled) {
> >
> > and you're saying the
> > > this condition needs to be
> > > adapted, as data structures within the if-block started at that line
> are
> > > only used in the parallel case.
> > Sorry, I still don't get it.  Are you saying the condition in the test is
> > not correct?  By "parallel case" do you mean the case where
> > more than one GC thread does the work?  Or are you counting
> > one GC thread executing the parallel code as part of the
> > "parallel case"?
>
> Sorry for confusing you. This was just some suggestion for if one of the
> serial paths is removed (e.g. in the sense of if we remove that, we need
> to also remove this). Since it has been decided to keep both for now (I
> think), this comment is obsolete.


I take this point as a non-issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20130607/b11c7076/attachment.htm>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list