RFR: JDK-8129626: G1: set_in_progress() and clear_started() needs a barrier on non-TSO platforms

[Bengt Rutisson]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for looking at this!

On 23/06/15 23:07, Tom Benson wrote:
> Hi,
> Looks OK to me, but I wonder if having set_in_progress do both steps 
> (setting 'in_progress', clearing 'started') would better contain the 
> knowledge that these are 2 separate memory cells.

Good point. Is this what you meant?

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/8129626/webrev.01/

Thanks,
Bengt

> Tom
>
> On 6/23/2015 4:25 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Could I have a couple of reviews for this change?
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129626
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/8129626/webrev.00/
>>
>> We need to add a barrier between the calls to set_in_progress() and 
>> clear_started() to make sure that other threads sees the correct 
>> value when they use ConcurrentMarkThread::during_cycle().
>>
>> Thanks to Per and Bertrand for helping out identifying and sorting 
>> this out.
>>
>> From the bug report:
>>
>> ConcurrentMarkThread::during_cycle() is implemented as:
>>
>> bool during_cycle() { return started() || in_progress(); }
>>
>> So, it checks both ConcurrentMarkThread::_started and 
>> ConcurrentMarkThread::_in_progress and they are meant to overlap. 
>> That is, we should not set _started to false until after we have set 
>> _in_progress to true. This is done in sleepBeforeNextCycle():
>>
>> void ConcurrentMarkThread::sleepBeforeNextCycle() {
>>   // We join here because we don't want to do the 
>> "shouldConcurrentMark()"
>>   // below while the world is otherwise stopped.
>>   assert(!in_progress(), "should have been cleared");
>>
>>   MutexLockerEx x(CGC_lock, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>>   while (!started() && !_should_terminate) {
>>     CGC_lock->wait(Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
>>   }
>>
>>   if (started()) {
>>     set_in_progress();
>>     clear_started();
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> On non-TSO platforms there is a risk that the write to _in_progress 
>> (from set_in_progress()) is seen by other threads after the write to 
>> _started (in clear_started()). In that case there is a window when 
>> during_cycle() may return false even though we are in a concurrent 
>> cycle.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bengt
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20150623/56cdfeca/attachment.htm>