RFR: 8367993: G1: Speed up ConcurrentMark initialization [v6]

[Leo Korinth]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:10:59 GMT, Leo Korinth <lkorinth at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This change moves almost all of the ConcurrentMark initialisation from its constructor to the method `G1ConcurrentMark::fully_initialize()`.  Thus, creation time of the VM can be slightly improved by postponing creation of ConcurrentMark. Most time is saved postponing creation of statistics buffers and threads.
>> 
>> It is not obvious that this is the best solution. I have earlier experimented with lazily allocating statistics buffers _only_. One could also initialise a little bit more eagerly (for example the concurrent mark thread) and maybe get a slightly cleaner change. However IMO it seems better to not have ConcurrentMark "half initiated" with a created mark thread, but un-initialised worker threads.
>> 
>> This change is depending on the integration of https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8373253.
>> 
>> I will be out for vacation, and will be back after new year (and will not answer questions during that time), but I thought I get the pull request out now so that you can have a look.
>
> Leo Korinth has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 19 commits:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into _8367993
>  - Merge branch '_master_jdk' into _8367993
>  - Merge branch '_8373253' into _8367993
>  - rename of method
>  - Proposal by Stefan J
>  - wip
>  - Revert "8373253: Re-work InjectGCWorkerCreationFailure for future changes"
>    
>    This reverts commit d45ea8817ab2303b2decd8cbb2cd1bf5280aa181.
>  - Revert "Fixup after comment from Ivan."
>    
>    This reverts commit 2aa8aa4b68027b62a8d4be1b86720fadfa48dda5.
>  - remove commented out code
>  - Stefan J 4
>  - ... and 9 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/90b54692...b41d4a0e

Please wait with reviewing my latest changes, I think I am doing the initialisation too early now.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28723#issuecomment-3798823060