[11u] RFR 8222015: Small VM.metaspace improvements

Langer, Christoph christoph.langer at sap.com
Wed Jun 26 08:56:06 UTC 2019

Hi Thomas,

thanks for backporting this item down to JDK11.

I agree with your decision not to take JDK-8209301 and JDK-8208671 at this point because they are really large and could potentially cause trouble. As far as I could see during your review your changes also fit to the current JDK11u source level but just need some manual shuffle in printCLDMetaspaceInfoClosure.cpp to find the right spot in the file.

So, after testing runs without regressions, I'm fine with this ��

Best regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hotspot-runtime-dev <hotspot-runtime-dev-
> bounces at openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Thomas Stüfe
> Sent: Montag, 24. Juni 2019 16:25
> To: jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net; Hotspot dev runtime <hotspot-
> runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: [11u] RFR 8222015: Small VM.metaspace improvements
> Dear all,
> may I please have reviews for this 11u downport fix:
> Original Issue:  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222015
> Original patch: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/fcf83b204c27
> 11u dev webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/backports/8222015-Small-
> VM.metaspace-improvements-11-full/webrev
> Manual changes:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/backports/8222015-Small-
> VM.metaspace-improvements-11-delta.patch
> This patch makes VM.metaspace "CDS aware" - before this patch, the
> printout
> was confusing and misleading if CDS was enabled and bootstrap classes were
> loaded from a shared archive.
> Unfortunately the patch did not apply cleanly since in head it is preceded
> by two larger changes:
> 1) "8209301: JVM rename is_anonymous, host_klass to unsafe specific
> terminology ahead of Unsafe.defineAnonymousClass deprecation"
> 2) "8208671: Runtime, JFR, Serviceability changes to allow enabling
> -Wreorder"
> First one is a wholesale renaming change, second one reorders initializer
> lists across the whole VM. Again, I did not want to backport that. I was
> unsure though. Do you agree with the decision to leave out these two
> changes?
> --
> Thanks, Thomas

More information about the jdk-updates-dev mailing list