Request for review (L) - 6593758

[Jon Masamitsu]

On 10/27/2011 10:28 PM, poonam.bajaj at oracle.com wrote:
> ...
> >
> >  What I meant to say was that at 5551 I wanted to use whatever value of
> >  active_workers that was calculated when calc_active_workers() was last
> >  called.  That would likely be the value at the last young GC or at the
> >  initial-mark.  I had at one point thought there was a dependency between
> >  the number of GC threads used in a young collection and the number used
> >  in the remark.  I've been told that is not the case but have not proven
> >  that to myself and since lots of testing has already been done with this
> >  code, I left it unchanged with a note to myself to look at it again.
> >
> >  Did I understand your comment?
>
> Yes.
>
> So, if the active_workers was not set then we will not calculate the
> active_workers with calc_active_workers() again and instead
> use ParallelGCThreads.
>
> Where in the code are the active_workers set for initial-marking
> phase?
>
Poonam, you caught me.  Active workers is not set in initial-marking since
initial marking is serial.    So I'm depending on the parallelism
being set for the ParNew collection.  I'll go check what again that
things still work with DefNew (no parallelism there but I should
verify that everything is ok).

Jon