RFR(S): 8229422: Taskqueue: Outdated selection of weak memory model platforms

Thomas Schatzl thomas.schatzl at oracle.com
Mon Sep 2 09:02:44 UTC 2019


On 02.09.19 00:52, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> On 30/08/2019 9:14 pm, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> good proposal.
>> Here's the minimal version:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mdoerr/8229422_multi-copy-atomic/webrev.02/
>> I've removed the compiler part. I can create a separate issue for 
>> making C1 and C2 consistent.
>> Arm32/aarch64 folks can create new issues if they like further changes.
>> I don't have any further requirements for s390 and PPC64 at the moment.
>> Can I consider it as reviewed by Thomas, David and Derek?
> The Aarch64 comment begs the question as to why it is not defining 
> CPU_MULTI_COPY_ATOMIC, but otherwise the changes are okay. My suggestion 
> for Aarch64 would be:
> // Aarch64 was not originally defined as multi-copy-atomic, but now is.
> // See: "Simplifying ARM Concurrency: Multicopy-atomic Axiomatic and 
> Operational Models for ARMv8"
> // So we could #define CPU_MULTI_COPY_ATOMIC but historically we have 
> not done so.

Fwiw, I am good with this comment too.


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list