RFR: 8221648: Remove CollectedHeap::is_in_closed_subset()

[Per Liden]

On 3/31/19 7:03 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Per Liden <per.liden at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> I propose that we remove CollectedHeap::is_in_closed_subset() and its unused sibling CollectedHeap::is_in_closed_subset_or_null(). We can replace all calls to is_in_closed_subset(), most of which is in verification code, with calls to is_in(). For Serial and ZGC, is_in_closed_subset() is already equivalent to is_in(). For G1, is_in_closed_subset() is very close to equivalent to is_in(). For CMS, Parallel, Epsilon, and Shenandoah, is_in_closed_subset() is equivalent to is_in_reserved(). However, their is_in() is arguably not a lot more expensive, at least not to the degree that is motivates keeping the is_in_closed_subset() API around. G1 is the only GC that calls is_in_closed_subset() outside of verification code (in RegisterHumongousWithInCSetFastTestClosure).
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221648
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pliden/8221648/webrev.0
>>
>> /Per
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> The comment for is_in_closed_subset() claims is_in() verifies the
> argument is actually an object, but the implementations of is_in()
> that I looked at don't seem to do anything of the kind. Which reduces
> the cost difference that was the justification for is_in_closed_subset.
> 
> This change trivially slows the setup for potential eager reclaim of
> humongous regions, but I agree that doesn't seem important.  If it did
> matter we could just inline the part of is_in() that's needed there.
> 

Thanks for reviewing, Kim!

/Per