RFR: 8057586: Explicit GC ignored if GCLocker is active [v7]

[Ivan Walulya]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:01:21 GMT, Thomas Schatzl <tschatzl at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Ivan Walulya has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Albert review - is_explicit_gc
>
> src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/gcCause.hpp line 103:
> 
>> 101:             cause == GCCause::_wb_full_gc);
>> 102:   }
>> 103: 
> 
> Not exactly sure what "explict gc"s are, but I would expect something more like this:
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
>   inline static bool is_explicit_gc(GCCause::Cause cause) {
>     return (is_user_requested_gc(cause) ||
>             is_serviceability_requested_gc(cause) ||
>             cause == GCCause::_wb_young_gc) ||
>             cause == GCCause::_wb_full_gc);
>   }
> 
> 
> because serviceability gcs are also explicitly requested by the user (from command line), and I believe all whitebox gcs are "explicit". Maybe also "_allocation_profiler" and "wb_breakpoint" ones (not sure right now about these ones).
> At least the serviceability ones shouldn't be eaten by gc locker either, but maybe there is no guarantee about them to actually occur.

`is_explicit_full_gc`  which ones would fall in that category? Those are the only ones we are be interested in.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13191#discussion_r1170267260