RFR(XL): 8167108 - SMR and JavaThread Lifecycle
Daniel D. Daugherty
daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
Tue Nov 21 17:30:52 UTC 2017
Adding back the missing OpenJDK aliases...
On 11/21/17 11:14 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
>
> On 11/20/17 8:50 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> On 11/20/17 12:51 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> Figured I'd better cast an eye over this again before it gets pushed :)
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing again!!
>>
>>
>>> Only one thing (repeated many times) jumped out at me and apologies
>>> if this has already been debated back and forth. I missed the
>>> exchange where the for loop iteration was rewritten into this
>>> unusual form:
>>>
>>> for (JavaThreadIteratorWithHandle jtiwh; JavaThread *jt =
>>> jtiwh.next(); ) {
>>>
>>> On first reading I expect most people would mistake the control
>>> expression for the iteration-expression due to the next(). I didn't
>>> even know the control expression could introduce a local variable! I
>>> find this really hard to read stylistically and far too cute/clever
>>> for its own good. It also violates the style rules regarding
>>> implicit boolean checks.
>>>
>>> I know Stefan proposed this as he did not like the alternate (in a
>>> few places):
>>>
>>> + {
>>> + ThreadsListHandle tlh;
>>> + JavaThreadIterator jti(tlh.list());
>>> + for (JavaThread* t = jti.first(); t != NULL; t = jti.next()) {
>>> ...
>>> + }
>>>
>>> but it seems to me the iterator code has evolved since then and only
>>> a couple of places need a distinct TLH separate from the actual
>>> iterator object. So I'm more in favour of the more classic for-loop,
>>> with the iterator declared before the loop. Or even convert to while
>>> loops, as this iterator seems more suited to that.
>>
>> Actually both Coleen and Stefan had a problem with how much additional
>> code was added to support an iterator model. In some cases we went from
>> 1-line to 3-lines and in some cases we went from 1-line to 5-lines. For
>> Coleen, she wanted 2 of the new lines compressed into 1 new line by
>> using
>> an iterator with an embedded ThreadsListHandle. Stefan wanted us to try
>> and get back to 1-line where possible.
>>
>> The advantages of the new style are:
>>
>> - 1-line to 1-line in all but a few cases
>> - automatic limited scope of the embedded ThreadsListHandle so we were
>> able to remove extra braces that were added earlier in most cases
>>
>> The disadvantages of the new style are:
>>
>> - it is an unusual for-loop style (in HotSpot)
>> - it breaks HotSpot's style rule about implied booleans
>>
>>
>> Stefan K is pretty adamant that the original iterator version where we
>> go from 1-line to 3-lines or 1-line to 5-lines is not acceptable for GC
>> code. The compiler guys haven't chimed in on this debate so I'm guessing
>> they don't have a strong opinion either way. One thing that we don't
>> want
>> to do is have different styles for the different teams.
>>
>> So I had to make a judgement call on whether I thought Runtime could
>> live
>> with Stefan's idea. Originally I wasn't fond of it either and
>> breaking the
>> implied boolean style rule is a problem for me (I post that comment a
>> lot
>> in my code reviews). However, I have to say that I'm a lot happier about
>> the compactness of the code and the fact that limited ThreadsListHandle
>> scope comes for 'free' in most cases.
>>
>> We're planning to keep the new iterator style for the following reasons:
>>
>> - smaller change footprint
>> - consistent style used for all of the teams
>> - limited ThreadsListHandle scope comes for free in most cases
>>
>> We're hoping that you can live with this decision (for now) and maybe
>> even grow to like it in the future. :-)
>
> The limited ThreadsListHandle scope, since ThreadsListHandle registers
> and unregisters lists to SMR, seems to be worth the cost of looking at
> this strange code pattern. Thank you for the explanation.
>
>>
>>
>>> Other than that just a couple of comments on variable type choices,
>>> and a few typos spotted below.
>>
>> Replies embedded below.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> ---
>>>
>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/globals.hpp
>>>
>>> 2476 diagnostic(bool, EnableThreadSMRExtraValidityChecks, true,
>>> \
>>> 2477 "Enable Thread SMR extra validity checks") \
>>> 2478 \
>>> 2479 diagnostic(bool, EnableThreadSMRStatistics, true, \
>>> 2480 "Enable Thread SMR Statistics") \
>>>
>>> Indent of strings is off by 3 spaces.
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/handshake.cpp
>>>
>>> 140 // There is assumption in code that Threads_lock should
>>> be lock
>>> 200 // There is assumption in code that Threads_lock should
>>> be lock
>>>
>>> lock -> locked
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> 146 // handshake_process_by_vmthread will check the
>>> semaphore for us again
>>>
>>> Needs period at end.
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> 148 // should be okey since the new thread will not have an
>>> operation.
>>>
>>> okey -> okay
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> 151 // We can't warn here is since the thread do
>>> cancel_handshake after it have been removed
>>>
>>> I think:
>>>
>>> // We can't warn here since the thread does cancel_handshake after
>>> it has been removed
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> 152 // from ThreadsList. So we should just keep looping here
>>> until while below return negative.
>>>
>>> from -> from the
>>>
>>> Needs period at end.
>>
>> Fixed both.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 204 // A new thread on the ThreadsList will not have an
>>> operation.
>>>
>>> Change period to comma, and ...
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> 205 // Hence is skipped in handshake_process_by_vmthread.
>>>
>>> Hence is -> hence it is
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/thread.cpp
>>>
>>> 1482 // dcubed - Looks like the Threads_lock is for stable access
>>> 1483 // to _jvmci_old_thread_counters and _jvmci_counters.
>>>
>>> Does this comment need revisiting?
>>
>> We've been trying to decide what to do about this comment. We'll be
>> filing a follow up bug for the Compiler team to take another look at
>> how _jvmci_old_thread_counters and _jvmci_counters are protected.
>> Threads_lock is a big hammer and there should be a less expensive
>> solution. Once that bug gets filed, this comment can go away.
>>
>>
>>> 3451 volatile jint ...
>>>
>>> Why are you using jint for field types here? (Surprised Coleen
>>> hasn't spotted them! ;-) ).
>
> Yes, it was the jtypes I would have objected to. And long isn't a
> good choice on windows because it's only 32 bits there.
>>
>> volatile jint Threads::_smr_delete_notify = 0;
>> volatile jint Threads::_smr_deleted_thread_cnt = 0;
>> volatile jint Threads::_smr_deleted_thread_time_max = 0;
>> volatile jint Threads::_smr_deleted_thread_times = 0;
>> :
>> volatile jint Threads::_smr_tlh_cnt = 0;
>> volatile jint Threads::_smr_tlh_time_max = 0;
>> volatile jint Threads::_smr_tlh_times = 0;
>>
>> _smr_delete_notify is a "flag" that indicates when an _smr_delete_lock
>> notify() operation is needed. It counts up and down and should be a
>> fairly
>> small number.
>>
>> _smr_deleted_thread_cnt counts the number of Threads that have been
>> deleted over the life of the VM. It's an always increasing number so
>> it's size depends on how long the VM has been running.
>>
>> _smr_deleted_thread_time_max is the maximum time in millis it has
>> taken to delete a thread. This field was originally a jlong, but
>> IIRC the Atomic::cmpxchg() code was not happy on ARM... (might have
>> just been Atomic::add() that was not happy)
>>
>> _smr_deleted_thread_times accumulates the time in millis that it
>> has taken to delete threads. It's an always increasing number so
>> it's size depends on how long the VM has been running. This field
>> was originally a jlong, but IIRC the Atomic::add() code was not
>> happy on ARM... (might have just been Atomic::cmpxchg() that was
>> not happy)
>>
>> _smr_tlh_cnt counts the number of ThreadsListHandles that have been
>> deleted over the life of the VM. It's an always increasing number so
>> it's size depends on how long the VM has been running.
>>
>> _smr_tlh_time_max is the maximum time in millis it has taken to
>> delete a ThreadsListHandle. This field was originally a jlong, but
>> IIRC the Atomic::cmpxchg() code was not happy on ARM... (might have
>> just been Atomic::add() that was not happy)
>>
>> _smr_tlh_times accumulates the time in millis that it has taken to
>> delete ThreadsListHandles. It's an always increasing number so
>> it's size depends on how long the VM has been running. This field
>> was originally a jlong, but IIRC the Atomic::add() code was not
>> happy on ARM... (might have just been Atomic::cmpxchg() that was
>> not happy)
>>
>>
>> It just dawned on me that I'm not sure whether you think the 'jint'
>> fields should be larger or smaller or the same size but a different
>> type... :-)
>>
>> The fact that I had to write so much to explain what these fields
>> are for and how they're used indicates I need more comments. See
>> below...
>>
>>
>>> 3456 long Threads::_smr_java_thread_list_alloc_cnt = 1;
>>> 3457 long Threads::_smr_java_thread_list_free_cnt = 0;
>>>
>>> long? If you really want 64-bit counters here you won't get them on
>>> Windows with that declaration. If you really want variable sized
>>> counters I suggest uintptr_t; otherwise uint64_t.
>>
>> long Threads::_smr_java_thread_list_alloc_cnt = 1;
>> long Threads::_smr_java_thread_list_free_cnt = 0;
>>
>> _smr_java_thread_list_alloc_cnt counts the number of ThreadsLists that
>> have been allocated over the life of the VM. It's an always increasing
>> number so it's size depends on how long the VM has been running and how
>> many Threads have been created and destroyed.
>>
>> _smr_java_thread_list_free_cnt counts the number of ThreadsLists that
>> have been freed over the life of the VM. It's an always increasing
>> number so it's size depends on how long the VM has been running and how
>> many Threads have been created and destroyed.
>>
>> I can't remember why we chose 'long' and I agree it's not a good choice
>> for Win*.
>>
>>
>> Okay so it dawns on me that we haven't written down a description for
>> the various new '_cnt', '_max' and '_times" fields so I'm adding these
>> comments to thread.hpp:
>>
>
> With this comment format, it's really hard to pick out the name of the
> field. Nobody uses 80 columns anymore. Can you move the comments
> over some spaces so the field names are visible?
Yes, I'll update the patch that I have for dholmes CR resolutions.
>
>> private:
>> // Safe Memory Reclamation (SMR) support:
>> static Monitor* _smr_delete_lock;
>> // The '_cnt', '_max' and '_times" fields are enabled via
>> // -XX:+EnableThreadSMRStatistics:
>> // # of parallel threads in
>> _smr_delete_lock->wait().
>> static uint _smr_delete_lock_wait_cnt;
>> // Max # of parallel threads in
>> _smr_delete_lock->wait().
>> static uint _smr_delete_lock_wait_max;
>> // Flag to indicate when an
>> _smr_delete_lock->notify() is needed.
>> static volatile uint _smr_delete_notify;
>> // # of threads deleted over VM lifetime.
>> static volatile uint _smr_deleted_thread_cnt;
>> // Max time in millis to delete a thread.
>> static volatile uint _smr_deleted_thread_time_max;
>> // Cumulative time in millis to delete
>> threads.
>> static volatile uint _smr_deleted_thread_times;
>> static ThreadsList* volatile _smr_java_thread_list;
>> static ThreadsList* get_smr_java_thread_list();
>> static ThreadsList* xchg_smr_java_thread_list(ThreadsList* new_list);
>> // # of ThreadsLists allocated over VM
>> lifetime.
>> static uint64_t _smr_java_thread_list_alloc_cnt;
>> // # of ThreadsLists freed over VM
>> lifetime.
>> static uint64_t _smr_java_thread_list_free_cnt;
>> // Max size ThreadsList allocated.
>> static uint _smr_java_thread_list_max;
>> // Max # of nested ThreadsLists for a
>> thread.
>> static uint _smr_nested_thread_list_max;
>> // # of ThreadsListHandles deleted
>> over VM lifetime.
>> static volatile uint _smr_tlh_cnt;
>> // Max time in millis to delete a
>> ThreadsListHandle.
>> static volatile jint _smr_tlh_time_max;
>> // Cumulative time in millis to delete
>> ThreadsListHandles.
>> static volatile jint _smr_tlh_times;
>> static ThreadsList* _smr_to_delete_list;
>> // # of parallel ThreadsLists on the
>> to-delete list.
>> static uint _smr_to_delete_list_cnt;
>> // Max # of parallel ThreadsLists on
>> the to-delete list.
>> static uint _smr_to_delete_list_max;
>>
>>
>> I've also gone through all the new '_cnt', '_max' and '_times" fields
>> in thread.cpp and added an impl note to explain the choice of type:
>>
>
> Since this is in the cpp file and there is so much comment text, can
> you just make it in column 1 and leave a blank line after each field.
> The indentation style is really hard to read and only useful if the
> comment is short.
Yes, I'll update the patch that I have for dholmes CR resolutions.
>
>> // Safe Memory Reclamation (SMR) support:
>> Monitor* Threads::_smr_delete_lock =
>> new Monitor(Monitor::special,
>> "smr_delete_lock",
>> false /* allow_vm_block */,
>> Monitor::_safepoint_check_never);
>> // The '_cnt', '_max' and '_times" fields are enabled via
>> // -XX:+EnableThreadSMRStatistics:
>> // # of parallel threads in
>> _smr_delete_lock->wait().
>> // Impl note: Hard to imagine > 64K waiting
>> threads so
>> // this could be 16-bit, but there is no nice
>> 16-bit
>> // _FORMAT support.
>> uint Threads::_smr_delete_lock_wait_cnt = 0;
>> // Max # of parallel threads in
>> _smr_delete_lock->wait().
>> // Impl note: See _smr_delete_lock_wait_cnt note.
>> uint Threads::_smr_delete_lock_wait_max = 0;
>> // Flag to indicate when an
>> _smr_delete_lock->notify() is needed.
>> // Impl note: See _smr_delete_lock_wait_cnt note.
>> volatile uint Threads::_smr_delete_notify = 0;
>> // # of threads deleted over VM lifetime.
>> // Impl note: Atomically incremented over VM
>> lifetime so
>> // use unsigned for more range. Unsigned 64-bit
>> would
>> // be more future proof, but 64-bit atomic inc
>> isn't
>> // available everywhere (or is it?).
>> volatile uint Threads::_smr_deleted_thread_cnt = 0;
>> // Max time in millis to delete a thread.
>> // Impl note: 16-bit might be too small on an
>> overloaded
>> // machine. Use unsigned since this is a time
>> value. Set
>> // via Atomic::cmpxchg() in a loop for
>> correctness.
>> volatile uint Threads::_smr_deleted_thread_time_max = 0;
>> // Cumulative time in millis to delete threads.
>> // Impl note: Atomically added to over VM
>> lifetime so use
>> // unsigned for more range. Unsigned 64-bit
>> would be more
>> // future proof, but 64-bit atomic inc isn't
>> available
>> // everywhere (or is it?).
>> volatile uint Threads::_smr_deleted_thread_times = 0;
>> ThreadsList* volatile Threads::_smr_java_thread_list = new
>> ThreadsList(0);
>> // # of ThreadsLists allocated over VM lifetime.
>> // Impl note: We allocate a new ThreadsList for
>> every
>> // thread create and every thread delete so we
>> need a
>> // bigger type than the _smr_deleted_thread_cnt
>> field.
>> uint64_t Threads::_smr_java_thread_list_alloc_cnt = 1;
>> // # of ThreadsLists freed over VM lifetime.
>> // Impl note: See
>> _smr_java_thread_list_alloc_cnt note.
>> uint64_t Threads::_smr_java_thread_list_free_cnt = 0;
>> // Max size ThreadsList allocated.
>> // Impl note: Max # of threads alive at one
>> time should
>> // fit in unsigned 32-bit.
>> uint Threads::_smr_java_thread_list_max = 0;
>> // Max # of nested ThreadsLists for a thread.
>> // Impl note: Hard to imagine > 64K nested
>> ThreadsLists
>> // so his could be 16-bit, but there is no nice
>> 16-bit
>> // _FORMAT support.
>> uint Threads::_smr_nested_thread_list_max = 0;
>> // # of ThreadsListHandles deleted over VM
>> lifetime.
>> // Impl note: Atomically incremented over VM
>> lifetime so
>> // use unsigned for more range. There will be
>> fewer
>> // ThreadsListHandles than threads so unsigned
>> 32-bit
>> // should be fine.
>> volatile uint Threads::_smr_tlh_cnt = 0;
>> // Max time in millis to delete a
>> ThreadsListHandle.
>> // Impl note: 16-bit might be too small on an
>> overloaded
>> // machine. Use unsigned since this is a time
>> value. Set
>> // via Atomic::cmpxchg() in a loop for
>> correctness.
>> volatile uint Threads::_smr_tlh_time_max = 0;
>> // Cumulative time in millis to delete
>> ThreadsListHandles.
>> // Impl note: Atomically added to over VM
>> lifetime so use
>> // unsigned for more range. Unsigned 64-bit
>> would be more
>> // future proof, but 64-bit atomic inc isn't
>> available
>> // everywhere (or is it?).
>> volatile uint Threads::_smr_tlh_times = 0;
>> ThreadsList* Threads::_smr_to_delete_list = NULL;
>> // # of parallel ThreadsLists on the to-delete
>> list.
>> // Impl note: Hard to imagine > 64K
>> ThreadsLists needing
>> // to be deleted so this could be 16-bit, but
>> there is no
>> // nice 16-bit _FORMAT support.
>> uint Threads::_smr_to_delete_list_cnt = 0;
>> // Max # of parallel ThreadsLists on the
>> to-delete list.
>> // Impl note: See _smr_to_delete_list_cnt note.
>> uint Threads::_smr_to_delete_list_max = 0;
>>
>>
>> Yikes! With the additional comments, the additions to thread.hpp and
>> thread.cpp grew by a bunch... I've done a test build build on my Mac
>> with these changes and I'm about to kick off a Mach5 tier1 job...
>
> Another reason why I agreed with some earlier comment that this should
> be in a new file because it's a new thing. I was somewhat surprised
> that it's not in threadSMR.{hpp,cpp}. This refactoring could be
> deferred but thread.cpp is too big!
More refactoring is planned for after the initial push of Thread-SMR...
Thanks for chiming in on this part of the review thread.
Dan
>
> thanks,
> Coleen
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2017 11:49 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> Testing of the last round of changes revealed a hang in one of the new
>>>> TLH tests. Robbin has fixed the hang, updated the existing TLH
>>>> test, and
>>>> added another TLH test for good measure.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the updated full webrev:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-09-full/
>>>>
>>>> Here is the updated delta webrev:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-09-delta/
>>>>
>>>> Dan ran the bits thru the usual Mach5 tier[1-5] testing and there are
>>>> no unexpected failures.
>>>>
>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/15/17 3:32 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> Robbin rebased the project last night/this morning to merge with
>>>>> Thread
>>>>> Local Handshakes (TLH) and also picked up additional changesets up
>>>>> thru:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Changeset: fa736014cf28
>>>>>> Author: cjplummer
>>>>>> Date: 2017-11-14 18:08 -0800
>>>>>> URL:http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/hs/rev/fa736014cf28
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8191049: Add alternate version of pns() that is callable from
>>>>>> within hotspot source
>>>>>> Summary: added pns2() to debug.cpp
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: stuefe, gthornbr
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the first time we've rebased the project to bits that are
>>>>> this
>>>>> fresh (< 12 hours old at rebase time). We've done this because we
>>>>> think
>>>>> we're done with this project and are in the final
>>>>> review-change-retest
>>>>> cycle(s)... In other words, we're not planning on making any more
>>>>> major
>>>>> changes for this project... :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> *** Time for code reviewers to chime in on this thread! ***
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the updated full webrev:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-08-full/
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's is the delta webrev from the 2017.11.10 rebase:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-08-delta/
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan has submitted the bits for the usual Mach5 tier[1-5] testing
>>>>> (and the new baseline also)...
>>>>>
>>>>> We're expecting this round to be a little noisier than usual because
>>>>> we did not rebase on a PIT snapshot so the new baseline has not been
>>>>> through Jesper's usual care-and-feeding of integration_blockers, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/14/17 4:48 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I rebased the project to the 2017.11.10 jdk/hs PIT snapshot.
>>>>>> (Yes, we're playing chase-the-repo...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the updated full webrev:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-07-full/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike the previous rebase, there were no changes required to the
>>>>>> open code to get the rebased bits to build so there is no delta
>>>>>> webrev.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These bits have been run through JPRT and I've submitted the usual
>>>>>> Mach5 tier[1-5] test run...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/17 12:30 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I rebased the project to the 2017.10.26 jdk10/hs PIT snapshot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are the updated webrevs:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the mq comment for the change:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rebase to 2017.10.25 PIT snapshot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the full webrev:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-06-full/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And here is the delta webrev:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-06-delta/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ran the above bits throught Mach5 tier[1-5] testing over the
>>>>>>> holiday
>>>>>>> weekend. Didn't see any issues in a quick look. Going to take a
>>>>>>> closer
>>>>>>> look today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/8/17 1:05 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Resolving one of the code review comments (from both Stefan K
>>>>>>>> and Coleen)
>>>>>>>> on jdk10-04-full required quite a few changes so it is being
>>>>>>>> done as a
>>>>>>>> standalone patch and corresponding webrevs:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the mq comment for the change:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> stefank, coleenp CR - refactor most JavaThreadIterator usage
>>>>>>>> to use
>>>>>>>> JavaThreadIteratorWithHandle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is the full webrev:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-05-full/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And here is the delta webrev:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-05-delta/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/9/17 3:41 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have a (eXtra Large) fix for the following bug:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 8167108 inconsistent handling of SR_lock can lead to crashes
>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167108
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This fix adds a Safe Memory Reclamation (SMR) mechanism based on
>>>>>>>>> Hazard Pointers to manage JavaThread lifecycle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's a PDF for the internal wiki that we've been using to
>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>> and track the work on this project:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/SMR_and_JavaThread_Lifecycle-JDK10-04.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan has noticed that the indenting is wrong in some of the
>>>>>>>>> code quotes
>>>>>>>>> in the PDF that are not present in the internal wiki. We don't
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> solution for that problem yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the webrev for current JDK10 version of this fix:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-04-full
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This fix has been run through many rounds of JPRT and Mach5
>>>>>>>>> tier[2-5]
>>>>>>>>> testing, additional stress testing on Dan's Solaris X64
>>>>>>>>> server, and
>>>>>>>>> additional testing on Erik and Robbin's machines.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Daniel Daugherty
>>>>>>>>> Erik Osterlund
>>>>>>>>> Robbin Ehn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list