RFR (S) 8078438: Interpreter should support conditional card marks (UseCondCardMark)

[Andrew Dinn]

On 29/04/15 08:57, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 28/04/15 17:13, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>>>> or, preferably
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   add	x10, x13, #0x28
>>>>>>   stlr	w14, [x10]
>>>>>>   lsr	x10, x13, #9
>>>>>>   stlrb	wzr, [x11,x10,lsl #0]
>>>>
>>>> That's more like it.
>> Yes, that is indeed much preferred.
> 
> It's not necessary to use STLRB.  For a volatile OOP store you have
> 
>    store -> volatile oop field
>    update card mark
> 
> It's not necessary for the card mark store to become visible
> immediately, just that it not become visible before the OOP store.
> This is guaranteed by volatile semantics as long as there is a
> happens-before relationship with the reading thread, which there
> seems to be because of the way that collector threads use locks.
> Therefore, it is not necessary to do anything more than
> 
>    add	x10, x13, #0x28
>    stlr	w14, [x10]
>    lsr	x10, x13, #9
>    strb	wzr, [x11,x10,lsl #0]

Well, ok, so it looks like e can get away with an strb when we are doing
a card mark for a volatile store i.e. where we are using an stlr<x> for
the field write.

But for non-volatile stores the accompanying StoreCM needs to be
translated to stlrb. We need that to enforce completion of the preceding
stlr<x> before the card mark becomes visible. So, the status quo is
still inadequate.

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Matt Parson (USA), Charlie Peters
(USA), Michael O'Neill (Ireland)