RFR (M) 8186088: ConstantPoolCache::_resolved_references is not a JNIHandle

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

Better yet, I removed the _pd field assignment from being 
cmpxchg/conditional and do it under the metaspace_lock which we take out 
anyway to add the handle.   How is this?

open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8186088.03/webrev

I reran the tests that use this code.

thanks,
Coleen

On 8/14/17 4:36 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Coleen,
>
> On 15/08/2017 1:38 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/13/17 9:04 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>
>>> On 12/08/2017 7:34 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>> Summary: Make an OopHandle type to replace jobject to encapsulate 
>>>> these oop pointers in metadata and module entry.
>>>>
>>>> This replaces places where there's a jobject that doesn't point 
>>>> into the JNIHandles, notably things allocated in 
>>>> ClassLoaderData::_handles.
>>>>
>>>> There were platform specific changes that I tried to carefully make 
>>>> - can someone test them for s390, aarch64 and ppc?
>>>>
>>>> Tested with tier1 testing, JPRT (all oracle platforms), nsk.jvmti, 
>>>> monitoring, parallel class loading and g1class unloading tests.
>>>>
>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8186088.01/webrev
>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186088
>>>
>>> Is it possible to put the declaration of 
>>> MacroAssembler::resolve_oop_handle into the shared 
>>> macroAssembler.hpp file to avoid the need to add it to the platform 
>>> specific hpp files?
>>>
>>> I'm unsure about the OopHandle containing set_atomic. First if it is 
>>> present then the _obj field should be volatile. But then it also 
>>> raises the question: if we can race to set this, do we need 
>>> load-acquire versions of the accessors? Based on the single existing 
>>> usage I don't think we presently do. But I think it may be 
>>> cleaner/simpler to not have set_atomic, make the OopHandle 
>>> immutable, and do the cmpxchg back in the caller code by atomically 
>>> updating _pd (which should also be volatile even today) with a new 
>>> OopHandle.
>>
>> I couldn't convince the compiler to compile an Atomic::cmpxchg_ptr() 
>> to an address of OopHandle since it is not a pointer but a struct. The 
>
> _pd would have to be a pointer.
>
>> casting would be wrong.   So I added a resolve_acquire() for the 
>> protection_domain case in ModuleEntry, and some commentary.
>
> For completeness you may also need ptr_acquire().
>
> The _obj field should be volatile.
>
> Thanks,
> David
> -----
>
>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8186088.02/webrev
>>
>> thanks,
>> Coleen
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Coleen
>>>>
>>>>
>>