for review (M): 6863023: need non-perm oops in code cache for JSR 292

[Tom Rodriguez]

On Aug 27, 2009, at 12:12 PM, John Rose wrote:

> On Aug 27, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Hmm.  Having to scan the stacks an extra time seems bad,  
>> particularly since it's only needed during a scavenge because we're  
>> treating some nmethods as strong roots.  Can't you just mark the  
>> nmethods during the stack walk and clear it during the gc_epilogue?
>
> Yes, that's what I was intending.  In the epilogue either a stack  
> walk or a code-cache walk will suffice to clear the bits, and I  
> think there's already a code-cache walk in all the relevant cases.

Oh, I thought you meant an additional walk in gc_prologue.   
gc_epiloque already includes a code cache walk so in the end it should  
require no extra walks, just some extra marking.

tom

>
> -- John