RFR (M): 8153503: Move remset scan iteration claim to remset local data structure

[Thomas Schatzl]

Hi,

On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 16:33 -0400, Derek White wrote:
> On 4/13/16 2:06 PM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 13:27 -0400, Derek White wrote:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > > 
> > > Small comment at the end...
> > [...]
> > 
[...]
> > One can of course separate the tasks (update rs, scan rs and scan
> > code
> > roots), but I do not really want to address this here. There is the
> > separate issue JDK-8153505 already.
> 
> Oh, I wasn't thinking of anything that grand, just a wrapper (another
> iterator) around HeapRegionRemSetIterator::has_next() that only
> returns 
> claimed card_indexes (eg. factoring out all of the filtering). But
> it's 
> not worth it since this is only done in one place anyway.
> 
> > > One suggestion to existing code:
> > > 
> > > g1RemSet.cpp, Line 235 (etc):
> > > 
> > > Rename "jump_to_card" => "claimed_cards". The "jump" term pre
> > > -dates
> > > the
> > > current parallelization scheme and now isn't very meaningful.
> > I think nothing changed conceptually in this part. I will see if I
> > can
> > find a better name for that variable though. :)
> 
> Sorry, I was referring to rev 1261 back in 2010 when they switched to
> a 
> block-based parallelization :-) The previous code was full of "jumps"
> and "skips", which is why we're still talking about "jump_to_card". A
> name that mentions "claims" and/or "blocks" would be more useful.
> > There are much better ways to handle work distribution for scan rs,
> > but
> > in this CR (and probably for JDK 9 FC) I would prefer if we did not
> > change how claiming work works.
> Agreed.
> 
> Final review comment:
> 
> --- heapRegionRemSet.hpp
>   - Copyright.
> 
> Ship it!

  new webrevs at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8153503/webrev.0_to_1/ (diff)
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8153503/webrev.1/ (full)

Thanks,
  Thomas