RFR: 8057586: Explicit GC ignored if GCLocker is active [v5]

[Ivan Walulya]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:21:04 GMT, Albert Mingkun Yang <ayang at openjdk.org> wrote:

>  !is_cause_full would cover more cases than System.gc and whitebox-fullgc, right? Is this really intended?

Yes, it is intended. 

> The introduce of `op.gc_succeeded()` is not well motivated -- the semantics of the return-val of `invoke()` is also not obvious at first glance. Therefore, I'd prefer keeping the existing signature.

Yeah, I did think about this. I can revert it.

> test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/TestJNICriticalStressTest.java line 175:
> 
>> 173:         long durationSec = Long.parseLong(args[0]);
>> 174:         int allocThreadNum = Integer.parseInt(args[1]);
>> 175:         int jniCriticalThreadNum = Integer.parseInt(args[2]);
> 
> Why is this always one in all test cases? Wouldn't it be more "stressing" to use sth larger? Same as `allocThreadNum` for instance.

one is enough to trigger the error if one exists, whichever number we pick higher will be random. You can suggest a number if you like.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13191#discussion_r1169967907
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13191#discussion_r1169970250