RFR(XS): 8132287: obsolete the "InlineNotify" flag option

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 5/10/18 1:46 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> On 5/10/18 10:07 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> On 5/10/18 12:43 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Looks good.
>>
>> Thanks for the quick review!
>>
>>
>>> Only concern is that library_call.cpp does not include 
>>> objectMonitor.hpp. You need to verify build without pre-compiled 
>>> header file.
>>
>> I should add an include of objectMonitor.hpp. Do you foresee any problem
>> with that?
>
> No problem with that.

Thanks! I kicked off a "builds-tier1,hs-tier1,hs-tier2" Mach5 job
just to cover my build bases... Now we just need someone from
Runtime to chime in on this review... :-)

Dan


>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 5/10/18 6:52 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> This review has been sent to two aliases so please reply to both.
>>>>
>>>> I'm obsoleting the '-XX:+InlineNotify' option and moving its 
>>>> functionality
>>>> to the experimental '-XX:SyncKnobs' option. This is a leftover 
>>>> cleanup from
>>>> the "Contended Locking fast notify bucket".
>>>>
>>>> Since this is a diagnostic option, a CSR is not required:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/CSR+FAQs
>>>>
>>>>  > Interfaces that are experimental or for diagnostic purposes do 
>>>> not need
>>>>  > to go through CSR process, but the CSR process may be employed 
>>>> if feedback
>>>>  > from the CSR reviewers is desired.
>>>>
>>>> Webrev URL: 
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8132287-webrev/0_for_jdk_jdk/
>>>>
>>>> See the bug for the results of test invocations of the 
>>>> '-XX:+InlineNotify'
>>>> option and the new '-XX:SyncKnobs' suboption.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>