[aarch64-port-dev ] 8153107: Unbalanced recursive locking

[White, Derek]

Hi Andrey,

It took me looking at the code three times, but I finally saw what you mean about condition code register. OK, looks fine to me.

You still need a (R)eviewer’s OK and then a sponsor.


  *   Derek

From: Andrey Petushkov [mailto:andrey.petushkov at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 4:55 PM
To: White, Derek <Derek.White at cavium.com>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>; hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net; aarch64-port-dev at openjdk.java.net; AArch32 Port Project <aarch32-port-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] 8153107: Unbalanced recursive locking


External Email
Hi Derek,

that shall be ands since it expected to leave the result in the flags register, see the cmpFastLock instruct in aarch64.ad<http://aarch64.ad>
to my taste this version is error-prone, since it's quite hard to deduce that contract FastLock node involves writing of non 0 value into DHW of stack lock when it has failed. however I don't insist. so if everyone agrees could someone please commit. sorry, I don't have necessary status


Regards,
Andrey

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:13 PM White, Derek <Derek.White at cavium.com<mailto:Derek.White at cavium.com>> wrote:
Hi Andrey,

I like this version.

My only suggestion is minor - the "ands" at line 3016 could be a simple "and". It causes no harm but could be confusing to a reader:

3016   ands(Rscratch, Rscratch, imm);

No need to see a new webrev.
- Derek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hotspot-runtime-dev [mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev-<mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev->
> bounces at openjdk.java.net<mailto:bounces at openjdk.java.net>] On Behalf Of Andrey Petushkov
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:25 AM
> To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com<mailto:aph at redhat.com>>
> Cc: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net>; aarch64-port-
> dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:dev at openjdk.java.net>; AArch32 Port Project <aarch32-port-
> dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:dev at openjdk.java.net>>
> Subject: Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] 8153107: Unbalanced recursive locking
>
> External Email
>
> Hm, strange. It displays well for me in the archives page. Anyway, I've put
> the webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetushkov/8153107/
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:15 PM Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com<mailto:aph at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> > On 06/14/2018 12:59 PM, Andrey Petushkov wrote:
> > > So then if you prefer to leave the different logic in shared code
> > > between quick and slow paths I believe the fix for cpu/arm
> > > implementation (and removal of unnecessary workaround for
> cpu/aarch64) should look like this:
> >
> > Something awful happened to the formatting of your mail.  Can you put
> > it up somewhere we can see the patch?
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Haley
> > Java Platform Lead Engineer
> > Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> > EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332
> > <https://maps.google.com/?q=6035+332&entry=gmail&source=g>F A671
> >