Request review: 4360113: Evict nmethods when code cache gets full

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Looks good.

On meeting I talked about the next Tom's complain which is not reflected in your final code.
I don't know if Tom agree on this.

 >>> One thing I don't really like is the new field in methodOop since it makes methodOops larger.  I'd like to avoid doing that if we could, particularly since the field is really only used in extreme cases.  Would it be possible to simply manage a list of these nmethods in the code cache instead?
 >> Yes, I see what you mean, but I think that would make it all a little more complicated. Such a list would have to be managed on the sweeper side too.   I'll have to think about it more.
 >
 > I agree that it's a little more complicated because you have to manage the list but it will end up being localized more I think.
 >
 > tom

Thanks,
Vladimir

Eric Caspole wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> I updated the webrev using an enum for that parameter as we discussed 
> today.
> 
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ecaspole/4360113/webrev.03/
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> 
>> Eric Caspole wrote:
>>> Could you send me a cmd line for trying CompileTheWorld? I don't 
>>> think I am doing it right, I tried:
>>> $ time /home/ecaspole/jdk1.6.0_16/bin/java -XX:+CompileTheWorld 
>>> -XX:+PrintCompilation  -version
>>> VM option '+CompileTheWorld'
>>> VM option '+PrintCompilation'
>>> CompileTheWorld : Compiling all classes in 
>>> /home/ecaspole/jdk1.6.0_16/jre/lib/resources.jar
>>
>> You need to specify .jar file you want to process, for example:
>>
>> -Xbootclasspath/p:/home/ecaspole/jdk1.6.0_16/jre/lib/rt.jar
>>
>> And eith -version VM will exit, use -showversion.
>>
>>>> Actually, I don't understand why it is need to be atomic.
>>>> It is always one direction change:
>>>> compiler broker change it to "false" and
>>>> only sweeper (at safepoint) change it to "true".
>>> What I was going for here is that when there are multiple compiler 
>>> threads, probably more than one will hit the full condition more at 
>>> less at once. I want to get the flag set and let me know if I 
>>> actually set it. If I won to set it, I will run the cleaning op, 
>>> otherwise I will go back and block and wait on the compile queue 
>>> until the flag gets set back to true.
>>
>> I see. I still want to use "1" instead of "true" for initialization
>> since in all places you use "1" or "0".
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
> 
>