RFR: 8229839: Break circular dependency between oop.inline.hpp and markWord.inline.hpp

[Tony Printezis]

Yep, looks good - thanks!


—————
Tony Printezis | @TonyPrintezis | tprintezis at twitter.com


On August 20, 2019 at 4:55:05 AM, Stefan Karlsson (
stefan.karlsson at oracle.com) wrote:

Hi Tony,

On 2019-08-19 20:37, Tony Printezis wrote:
> Hey Stefan,
>
> This looks good. Would it be helpful to introduce:
>
> inline bool oopDesc::mark_must_be_preserved() const {
>   return mark_must_be_preserved(mark_raw());
> }
>
> for the cases where you don’t already have the mark word? But I only saw
> of places where that’s the case...

Thanks for reviewing!

I've added the function you suggested, and updated the places where this
could be used:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8229839/webrev.02.delta/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8229839/webrev.02/

It passes tier1-3

Thanks,
StefanK

>
> Tony
>
> —————
> Tony Printezis | @TonyPrintezis | tprintezis at twitter.com
> <mailto:tprintezis at twitter.com>
>
>
> On August 19, 2019 at 10:21:58 AM, Stefan Karlsson
> (stefan.karlsson at oracle.com <mailto:stefan.karlsson at oracle.com>) wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please review this patch to break the circular dependency between
>> oop.inline.hpp and markWord.inline.hpp.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8229839/webrev.01/
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229839
>>
>> The patch removes the call to oopDesc::klass() from markWord.inline.hpp.
>> This is done by passing in the klass from callers to the different
>> markWord::must_be_preserved functions.
>>
>> Some of the paths inside markWord::must_be:preserved don't need the
>> klass, and calling oopDesc::klass() in those cases would be wasteful. To
>> prevent this, I changed the code to allow the callers to provide a
>> KlassProxy that can resolve to a const Klass* when and if a Klass is
>> needed. I'm not sure if this is needed or not, but I didn't want to
>> pessimise the code by introducing new calls to oopDesc::klass().
>>
>> I also took the opportunity to consolidate and remove some code
>> duplication in must_be_preserved functions. This could of course be
>> split into a separate patch if that's requested.
>>
>> Testing done locally. Will run tier123.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> StefanK