RFR: 8140393: Move WorkerDataArray to its own file

[Tom Benson]

Yes, seems fine to me.  Thanks,
Tom

On 10/28/2015 9:17 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
> Tom,
>
> are you ok with me pushing this patch as two commits (see my reply to
> Mikael)?
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
>
> On 2015-10-27, Erik Helin wrote:
>> 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