RFR: 8024137 - Flags should be set using the proper macro

[Jon Masamitsu]

On 7/11/2016 3:14 PM, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> Den 11/7/16 kl. 20:47, skrev Jon Masamitsu:
>> Jesper,
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jwilhelm/8024137/webrev.00/src/share/vm/gc/shared/collectorPolicy.cpp.frames.html 
>>
>>
>>
>>  361   if (OldSize < old_gen_size_lower_bound()) {
>>  362     FLAG_SET_ERGO(size_t, OldSize, old_gen_size_lower_bound());
>>  363   }
>>  364   if (!is_size_aligned(OldSize, _gen_alignment)) {
>>  365     FLAG_SET_ERGO(size_t, OldSize, align_size_down(OldSize, 
>> _gen_alignment));
>>
>>
>> If OldSize has to be adjusted for both lower bound and alignment,
>> what gets saved as the previous value?
>
> There is no difference in what is saved as the previous value due to 
> this change as far as I can see.

I understand that to mean that the previous value saved by the first use 
of FLAG_SET_ERGO
is not changed when FLAG_SET_ERGO is used a second time.   In this case 
at 362 the value set
on the command line is saved and the minimum adjusted value is set in 
OldSize.  Then at
365 the previous value is still the value set on the command line and 
OldSize is set to an aligned value.

If that is so, then the change looks good.

Reviewed.

Jon

> /Jesper
>
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 06/21/2016 01:01 PM, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review this change to make the GC ergonomics use FLAG_SET_ERGO()
>>> instead of setting values directly in flags. This change builds on 
>>> the fix for
>>> JDK-8048093 and assumes that we will remember that the flags was set 
>>> on the
>>> command line.
>>>
>>> If you know of any other places where we assign a flag directly 
>>> without using
>>> FLAG_SET_ERGO() please let me know since it would make sense to 
>>> change all
>>> these places in this change.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024137
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jwilhelm/8024137/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> /Jesper
>>>
>>