RFR: 8140393: Move WorkerDataArray to its own file

[Erik Helin]

On 2015-10-26, Tom Benson wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Looks good to me.

Hi Tom,

thanks for reviewing!

On 2015-10-26, Tom Benson wrote:
> One very minor comment - In set_thread_work_item, the
> assertion comment "No sub count" (which you didn't change) seems a little
> off.

Yeah, I agree, "No thread_work_items present" would be better, let me
change that as a follow-up patch.

On 2015-10-26, Tom Benson wrote:
> I agree removing the caching code is good, though I was wary at first.
> Not because of the expense of walking the array, but the potential expense
> of dfloat ops (as on a previous platform I worked on).  But in reality I
> don't think the value will be recomputed much, if ever.

I also don't think this patch will have any performance impact and the
benchmark runs seem to verify that hypothesis.

Thanks,
Erik

> Tom
> 
> 
> On 10/26/2015 8:23 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >this patch moves the class WorkerDataArray into its own file. While
> >moving to the code, I also refurbished it a bit. WorkerDataArray used
> >to cache the results for calls to max(), min(), sum() etc because it
> >might be expensive too loop over the array. However, the array we are
> >iterating over will at most be as big as the number of GC threads (it is
> >very rare to use more than 1000 GC threads). Performance runs shows no
> >regressions at all, so I prefer to go with the simpler code.
> >
> >Enhancement:
> >https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8140393
> >
> >Webrev:
> >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ehelin/8140393/webrev.00/
> >
> >Testing:
> >- JPRT
> >- Perf Aurora for performance regressions
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Erik
>