RFR: 8250597: G1: Improve inlining around trim_queue

Kim Barrett kim.barrett at oracle.com
Thu Aug 13 13:48:32 UTC 2020


> On Aug 13, 2020, at 7:16 AM, stefan.johansson at oracle.com wrote:
> 
> Hi Kim (and Thomas),
> 
> On 2020-08-07 09:57, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> CR:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250597
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8250597/open.00/
>>>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8250597/open.01/
>>>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8250597/open.01.inc/
> 
> Looks good, nice refactoring.

Thanks.

>> The current code is nicer, yes. Thanks for refactoring this a bit. Also the changes in the allocation path where the old-gen-is-full check has been moved (I did not check performance with this part of the change).
> 
> I looked at this an extra time as well. But if there would be any slight regression it would only be when we have an evac failure, right? So to me the cleaner code is more important.

Sorry I forgot to discuss this change in the RFR email.

The rationale is, as you surmised, to move uncommon work from the
normal fast path to slow path.

As a result, we'll now attempt the fast-path plab allocation when the
destination is old and old-gen is full. And that allocation might even
succeed, because we haven't necessarily tossed the plab after old-gen
full is detected. So we might squeeze a few more objects into the
plab. But usually it will be a waste of time in that uncommon
situation, but not a lot of time. And that seems like the right
trade-off to me.

And as you say, it does make the code cleaner. 

Also, this might also set us up for a different fall-back. (I haven't
thought this all through yet.) If the source object is young and can't
be promoted to old because old is full, then try copying it a young
survivor region, if there are any, rather than going immediately to
evacuation failure. I think there's an RFE for that. I don't think we
want any overhead for that on the fast path, but here seems like a
good place for handling that situation. Something along this line
probably makes the code less clean...




More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list