RFR (S) 8164207: Checking missing load-acquire in relation to _pd_set in dictionary.cpp

[Zhengyu Gu]

Looks good to me.

-Zhengyu

On 08/25/2017 09:26 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
> 
> Thank you Zhengyu for noticing this change was wrong, and Christian for 
> the idea.   New webrev:
> 
> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8164207.02/webrev
> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164207
> 
> I reran parallel class loading tests and jck testing is in progress, but 
> order access requires inspection.
> 
> Thanks,
> Coleen
> 
> 
> On 8/24/17 5:11 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/24/17 5:00 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:54 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/24/17 4:07 PM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>>>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two instances probably overlooked?
>>>>>
>>>>> dictionary.cpp #103 and #124
>>>>>
>>>>>     for (ProtectionDomainEntry* current = _pd_set;
>>>>> =>
>>>>>     for (ProtectionDomainEntry* current = pd_set();
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, you're right.  That's embarrasing.   I'll fix and retest.
>>> Which also shows that there is a potential for future mistakes. Can 
>>> we isolate the field better so it’s only accessible via setter and 
>>> getter?
>>
>> Yes, great idea.
>> Coleen
>>
>>>> Thank you!!
>>>> Coleen
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Zhengyu
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/24/2017 02:28 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>> Summary: Use load_acquire for accessing DictionaryEntry::_pd_set 
>>>>>> since it's accessed outside the SystemDictionary_lock
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ran parallel class loading tests that we have as well as tier1 
>>>>>> tests. See bug for details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8164207.01/webrev
>>>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164207
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Coleen
>>>>>>
>>
>