RFR (XXS): 8136680: Enable adaptive IHOP by default

[Jon Masamitsu]

Thomas,

Hearing no concerns by others about the naming,
your latest changes are still good.

Reviewed.

Jon

On 11/30/2015 9:35 AM, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
>
>
> On 11/26/2015 02:20 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>>    thanks for the review.
>>
>> On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 10:33 -0800, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
>>> Thomas, Looks good.
>>>
>>>
>>> 36 product(bool, G1UseAdaptiveIHOP, true, \
>>>     37           "Adaptively adjust InitiatingHeapOccupancyPercent 
>>> from the "      \
>>> 38 "initial value. The policy tries to start marking as late as " \
>>> 39 "possible.")
>>>
>>> Let me suggest an alternate comment though.
>>>
>>> "Dynamically adjust the initiating heap occupancy from the initial
>>> value of
>>> InitiatingHeapOccupancyPercent.  The policy attempts to start 
>>> marking in
>>> time based on application behavior."
>>>
>> Much better. Updated webrev at
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8136680/webrev.1/
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>> Do we need G1 in the name of the flag? Would UseAdaptiveIHOP be
>>> sufficient?   Or maybe UseDynamicIHOP?  Or  (I write this with some
>>> trepidation) would the flag be better named
>>> UseAdaptiveInitiatingHeapOccupancy
>>> or UseDynamicInitiatingHeapOccupancy?
>>>
>> As for Adaptive vs. Dynamic, I think Adaptive captures the spirit of the
>> change better. Also I have not seen other similar flags using Dynamic,
>> but Adaptive.
>
> "Adaptive" it is then.
>
>>
>> As for adding "G1" in front of the flag or not, not sure. CMS also has
>> its flags prepended with "CMS". Maybe other people have stronger
>> opinions about this, I would be okay with either.
>
> I thought about it because "InitiatingHeapOccupancyPercent" does
> have the "G1".  But if no one else speaks up on this, leave the "G1"
> in the name.
>
>>
>> I also thought about using the long forms, but I think they are too
>> long :)
>
> Ok.  I can live with it.
>
> Reviewed.
>
> Jon
>
>>> I'm asking the question now because I don't want to ask it the next 
>>> time
>>> we do a cleanup of flag names.  I can live with any of the above.
>> Thanks,
>>    Thomas
>>
>>
>