RFR: 8329593: Drop adjustments to target parallelism when virtual threads do I/O on files opened for buffered I/O

[Jaikiran Pai]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:04:36 GMT, Alan Bateman <alanb at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This change drops the adjustments to the virtual thread scheduler's target parallelism when virtual threads do file operations on files that are opened for buffered I/O. These operations are usually just too short to have any benefit and may have a negative benefit when reading/writing a small number of bytes. There is no change for read/write operations on files opened for direct I/O or when writing to files that are opened with options for synchronized I/O file integrity (O_SYNC/O_DSYNC and equivalents). Sergery Kuksenko is polishing benchmarks that includes this area, this is for a future PR.
> 
> In addition, the blocker mechanism is updated to handle reentrancy as can happen if debugging code is added to ForkJoinPool, if there is preemption when attempting to compensate, or potentially forced preemption in the future. This part is a pre-requisite to the changes to better support object monitor there are more places where preemption is possible and this quickly leads to unbalanced begin/end.
> 
> The changes have been baking in the loom repo for several months.

src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/CarrierThread.java line 81:

> 79:                 value = ForkJoinPools.beginCompensatedBlock(getPool());
> 80:             } catch (Throwable e) {
> 81:                 if (compensating == COMPENSATE_IN_PROGRESS) {

I don't fully follow these checks `if (compensating == COMPENSATE_IN_PROGRESS) {`. Surely it's not for concurrent access (given the `assert` at the start of this method, this code path happens in a single thread). So I think these checks are about the re-entrancy that is mentioned in the description of this PR.
In the context of re-entrancy, if I am reading the code correctly, I don't see how a re-entrant call would end up on this line (and other similar lines) in this top level `if` block. When a thread enters the top level `if` block it immediately sets the `compensating` to `COMPENSATE_IN_PROGRESS`:


if (compensating == NOT_COMPENSATING) {
    compensating = COMPENSATE_IN_PROGRESS;
...

So a subsequent re-entrant call would never enter that top level `if` block again. Which leads me to question the need of these additional `if (compensating == COMPENSATE_IN_PROGRESS) {` checks. I feel like I am missing something in this code.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18598#discussion_r1557834582