RFR (XXL) [7u60]: nmethod backports (12 backports)

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Looks good to me.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 1/23/14 8:43 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
>    thanks for your review :)
>
> On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 20:04 -0800, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Thomas,
>>
>> Based on your tests list you sent I thinks you get good test coverage.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> I compared compared these changes with jdk8 changes.
>>
>> c1_Runtime1.cpp: missed {} parenthesis.
>
> Fixed.
>
>>
>> nmethod.cpp: nmethod::oops_do() changes. The only place where
>> do_strong_roots_only was passed as 'true' was in
>> do_newly_marked_nmethod(). But you changed it to 'false':
>>
>>    void CodeBlobToOopClosure::do_newly_marked_nmethod(nmethod* nm) {
>> -  nm->oops_do(_cl, /*do_strong_roots_only=*/ true);
>> +  nm->oops_do(_cl, /*do_strong_roots_only=*/ false, /*allow_zombie=*/
>> false);
>>    }
>>
>> Does it make sense to keep the argument?
>
> This is a bug actually, the second parameter should read true. It's a
> performance issue though only, so it went undetected so far. It prevents
> some unloading. Thanks for finding this!
>
> I fixed both issues in
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/nmethod-backport/2/ , or
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/nmethod-backport/2/webrev.05-7145569 (direct link to webrev). No other changes.
>
> Ad-hoc testing (including bigapps, e.g. kitchensink, weblogic, runthese
> 30mins) is currently running, with 90% complete and no issues so far (g1
> product/debug, and default collector with product/debug builds). I do
> not expect any surprises here.
>
> The previous build also passed 24h kitchensink on all tested platforms
> (only did a few, not all) with both collectors.
>
> Thanks a lot,
>    Thomas
>
>