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

[Mikael Gerdin]

Hi,

The backport looks good to me too.

/Mikael


On 2016-08-31 03:58, Shafi Ahmad wrote:
> 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
>>>