CMS parallel initial mark
Jon Masamitsu
jon.masamitsu at oracle.com
Mon Jun 10 19:21:32 UTC 2013
On 6/7/13 3:20 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote:
> Here's an update version of the first patch based on what's been
> discussed so far:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hiroshi/webrevs/cmsparinitmark/webrev.02/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ehiroshi/webrevs/cmsparinitmark/webrev.02/>
>
> I'll catch up with the comments on the other patch later.
Changes look good.
Thanks.
Jon
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jon Masamitsu
> <jon.masamitsu at oracle.com <mailto:jon.masamitsu at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> I've created the CR 8016184
>
> Consolidate common code between MarkRefsIntoClosure and
> Par_MarkRefsIntoClosure
>
> Hiroshi,
>
> The renaming of Par_MarkRefsIntoClosure to ParMarkRefsIntoClosure can
> wait (unless you've already done it). As you've seen the use of
> Par_<class_name> is wide spread in CMS and should be fixed
> comprehensively in one changeset.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> On 6/7/2013 11:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I'll be catching up with them.
>
>
> - in cmsOopClosures.hpp,
> MarkRefsIntoClosure and the new
> Par_MarkRefsIntoClosure could be refactored
> slightly as they have
> exactly the same member variables. Not sure
> how this situation is
> handled in other code though, and what others
> (Jon) think.
>
> Thomas,
>
> If you don't mind I'd like to keep this changeset
> to a minimum so
> not do any additional refactoring. That's a good
> suggestion but
> since this is the first sizable contribution I'm
> sponsoring, simpler
> is better for me.
>
> Okay. It would be a tiny additional change though,
> which has only been
> enabled by the addition of the
> Par_MarkRefsIntoClosure, and of course
> depends on whether the old serial initial marking code
> is kept.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Regarding whether to refactor MarkRefsIntoClosure and
> Par_MarkRefsIntoClosure, it's a valid point. I assume you are
> referring to
> factoring out the common parts into a common super class.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion. Looking at the exchanges, I'm
> interpreting
> it as "let's not do it right now." Let me know if it's not the
> case.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20130610/be9e1a81/attachment.htm>
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev
mailing list