RFR 8191890: Biased locking still uses the inferior stop the world safepoint for revocation

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 7/8/19 8:10 PM, Patricio Chilano wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On 7/8/19 5:37 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> On 7/7/19 3:09 PM, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Below is the webrev for v05. This is just v04 on top of a new 
>>> baseline that includes the backout of 8221734 and other changes made 
>>> to biasedLocking code by 8225702 and 8225344.
>>> The only difference between v05 and v04 is the use of 
>>> SafepointSynchronize::safepoint_id() instead of 
>>> SafepointSynchronize::safepoint_counter() introduced by 8225702, and 
>>> not having to remove method 
>>> BiasedLocking::revoke_own_locks_in_handshake() and to edit method 
>>> Deoptimization::revoke_using_handshake() which were actually removed 
>>> by the backout of 8221734.
>>>
>>> Full Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8191890/v05/webrev/ 
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epchilanomate/8191890/v05/webrev/>
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/interpreter/interpreterRuntime.cpp
>>     No comments.
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/biasedLocking.cpp
>>     No comments.
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/biasedLocking.hpp
>>     No comments.
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/deoptimization.cpp
>>     No comments.
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/handshake.cpp
>>     No comments.
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vmOperations.hpp
>>     No comment.
>>
>> src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/runtime/VMOps.java
>>     The copyright year needs to be updated.
> Fixed! Do you need to see another webrev?

No new webrev needed. Sorry, I should said that.

Dan


>
>> test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestBiasedLockRevocationEvents.java
>>     No comments.
>>
>> I did the first pass review using:
>>
>>     $ jfilemerge -r open.8191890.v4.patch open.8191890.v5.patch
>>
>> and nothing jumped out at me. I did a quick review of the
>> v5 webrev and the only thing I noticed was the copyright
>> year mentioned above.
>>
>> I have to repeated a comment from the v01 code review:
>>
>> > Outstanding job on a very arcane and complicated part of the system.
>>
>> Thanks for sticking with this fix!
> Thanks Dan!  : )
>
>
> Patricio
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Tested with tiers1-7. Running another round now.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Patricio
>>
>