[8u] RFR for JDK-8152438: Threads may do significant work out of the non-shared overflow buffer

[Shafi Ahmad]

May I get the second review of this. Customer wants this fix in Oct release and hence we have to raise a critical request.

Thanks,
Shafi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shafi Ahmad
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:06 PM
> To: Thomas Schatzl; hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Cc: Jon Masamitsu; Erik Helin; Stefan Johansson
> Subject: RE: [8u] RFR for JDK-8152438: Threads may do significant work out of
> the non-shared overflow buffer
> 
> May I get the second review for this.
> 
> Regards,
> Shafi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Schatzl
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:59 PM
> > To: Shafi Ahmad; hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: [8u] RFR for JDK-8152438: Threads may do significant work
> > out of the non-shared overflow buffer
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 01:05 -0700, Shafi Ahmad wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Please review the backport of bug: "JDK-8152438: Threads may do
> > > significant work out of the non-shared overflow buffer" to jdk8u.
> > >
> > > Please note that the backport is not clean. The import conflict is
> > > due
> > > to:
> > >   1. File taskqueue.inline.hpp doesn't exist in jdk8 so I have added
> > > code change done in this file to taskqueue.hpp.
> > >   2. File name path change.
> > >
> > > Webrev link:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shshahma/8152438/webrev.00/
> > > Jdk9 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152438
> > > Original patch pushed to jdk9:
> > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/h
> > > otspot/rev/07109ac130cd
> > >
> > > Testing: jprt and running jtreg [not completed].
> >
> >   looks good.
> >
> > Maybe you want the same spacing for the changes in the declaration of
> > the OverflowTaskQueue class (no newline between
> > OverflowTaskQueue::push() and OverflowTaskQueue::try_push()) as in
> the
> > jdk9 change.
> >
> > I leave it up to you. I would not need a re-review for removing the
> > extra newline.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   Thomas
> >