RFR (S): C1 still does eden allocations when TLAB is enabled
jcbeyler at google.com
Sat Jul 14 04:16:39 UTC 2018
I opened this bug
and now I've done an update:
I basically have done your nits but also removed the try_eden (it was used
to bind a label but was not used). I updated the comments to use the one
I still have to do the other architectures though but at least we seem to
have a consensus on this architecture, correct?
Thanks for the review,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:17 PM Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 2018, at 4:54 PM, JC Beyler <jcbeyler at google.com> wrote:
> > Yes, you are right, I did those changes due to:
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194084
> > If Robbin agrees to this change, and if no one sees an issue, I'll go
> > and propagate the change across architectures.
> > Thanks for the review, I'll wait for Robbin (or anyone else's comment and
> > review) :)
> > Jc
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 1:08 PM John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com>
> >> On Jul 13, 2018, at 10:23 AM, JC Beyler <jcbeyler at google.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure if we had left this case intentionally or not but, if we
> >> it all to be consistent, we should perhaps fix it.
> >> Well, you put in that logic last February, so unless somebody speaks up
> >> quickly, I support your adjusting it to be the way you want it.
> >> Doing "hg grep -u supports_inline_contig_alloc -I src/hotspot/share"
> >> suggests that the GC group is most active in touching this feature.
> >> If Robbin is OK with it, there's your reviewer.
> >> FWIW, you can use me as a reviewer, but I'd get one other person
> >> working on the GC to OK it.
> >> — John
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Jc
> Robbin is on vacation; you might not hear from him for a while.
> I'm assuming you'll open a new bug for this?
> Except for a few minor nits (below), this looks okay to me.
> The comment at line 1052 needs updating.
> pre-existing: The retry_tlab label declared on line 1054 is unused.
> pre-existing: The try_eden label declared on line 1054 is bound at
> line 1058, but unreferenced.
> I like the wording of the comment at 1139 better than the wording at 1016.
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev