RFR: 8166811: Missing memory fences between memory allocation and refinement

[Thomas Schatzl]

Hi Kim,

On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:02 -0500, Kim Barrett wrote:
> > 
> > On Nov 16, 2016, at 4:06 AM, Thomas Schatzl <thomas.schatzl at oracle.
> > com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Kim,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 19:00 -0500, Kim Barrett wrote:
> > > 
> > > I've updated some comments to mention that external
> > > synchronization.
> >  581   // The region could be young.  Cards for young regions are
> > set
> > to
> >  582   // g1_young_gen, so the post-barrier will filter them
> > out.  However,
> >  583   // that marking is performed concurrently.  A write to a
> > young
> >  584   // object could occur before the card has been marked young,
> > slipping
> >  585   // past the filter.
> > 
> > I would prefer if the text would not change terminology for the
> > same
> > thing mid-paragraph, from "setting" to "marking". The advantage of
> > it
> > reading better seems to be smaller than the potential confusion.
>   // The region could be young.  Cards for young regions are
>   // distinctly marked (set to g1_young_gen), so the post-barrier
> will
>   // filter them out.  However, that marking is performed
>   // concurrently.  A write to a young object could occur before the
>   // card has been marked young, slipping past the filter.
> 
> Better?

  better :)

Thanks,
  Thomas