Request for review: 8005895: Inefficient InstanceKlass field packing wasts memory

[Coleen Phillimore]

If I remember correctly, _is_marked_dependent had special atomic 
properties that made us unable to add them to the misc flags, but that's 
a good question about _has_default_methods.   It could be a misc_flags 
if there's space in that.   There'd be a gap but it would be consistent 
and we can add more flags in the future.
A comment about _is_marked_dependent would be good too.
thanks,
Coleen


On 01/10/2013 01:11 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Why is _has_default_methods not in the enumerated flags there in the first place?
>
> -Aleksey
>
> On 10.01.2013, at 21:57, Jiangli Zhou <jiangli.zhou at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review the following trivial change for repacking the InstanceKlass fields to improve memory efficiency.
>>
>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jiangli/8005895/webrev.00/
>>
>> The 'bool' typed variables, '_is_marked_dependent' and '_has_default_methods' were grouped with u2 typed fields. For both, there were 1-byte padding added on 32bit machine. We can pack those two boolean variables together to avoid the padding, then move one of the u2 field to be together with '_init_state' and '_reference_type'. That saves 4 bytes without any real code change.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jiangli