RFR 8191890: Biased locking still uses the inferior stop the world safepoint for revocation
Patricio Chilano
patricio.chilano.mateo at oracle.com
Fri Jun 21 14:49:35 UTC 2019
Hi David,
On 6/20/19 9:41 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Patricio,
>
> On 18/06/2019 10:08 pm, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here is v03, it contains the fixes suggested by Markus and Coleen:
>>
>> Full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8191890/v03/webrev/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epchilanomate/8191890/v03/webrev/>
>> Inc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8191890/v03/inc/webrev/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epchilanomate/8191890/v03/inc/webrev/>
>>
>> The only extra change that I made was moving the clean of the cache
>> and the declaration of ResourceMark outside of
>> walk_stack_and_revoke(), since that was preventing the optimization
>> of using the cache when revoking with revoke(GrowableArray<Handle>*
>> objs, JavaThread *).
>
> I don't quite follow how the ResourceMark placement relates to that.
> If walk_stack_and_revoke contains code that needs the RM then surely
> better to place it where needed rather than callers having to remember
> to use a RM themselves.
The issue of leaving the ResourceMark in walk_stack_and_revoke() is that
the array created by get_or_compute_monitor_info() would be destroyed
upon return, so to avoid a new call to get_or_compute_monitor_info()
returning the old array we would be forced to clear the cache.
I agree that from a user's perspective it would be better to place it in
walk_stack_and_revoke(), but also since it's a private method it will
not be called outside of BiasedLocking class. Also calling
walk_stack_and_revoke() without a ResourceMark would trigger an
assertion so it would be easy to spot. How about if I add the comment
"Caller should have instantiated a ResourceMark object before calling
this method" on top of walk_stack_and_revoke() ?
Thanks,
Patricio
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> Coleen: I didn't simplified methods revoke(GrowableArray<Handle>*
>> objs...) and revoke_at_safepoint(GrowableArray<Handle>* objs) after
>> all. I tried to do it by replacing them with a single method that
>> would mostly call walk_stack_and_revoke() for revocations, but that
>> causes problems similar to 8225351, since the passed array might
>> contain an object not biased towards the expected JavaThread.
>>
>> Tested with mach5 tiers1-6.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Patricio
>>
>> On 6/17/19 6:55 PM, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>
>>> On 6/17/19 4:55 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/17/19 2:14 PM, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/14/19 7:08 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for being late to the party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8191890/v02/webrev/src/hotspot/share/runtime/biasedLocking.cpp.frames.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 586 if (_biased_locker == mark->biased_locker()) {
>>>>>> 587 if (mark->bias_epoch() == prototype->bias_epoch()) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you add a comment what this means? The object's biased
>>>>>> locker matches what we thought it was, and the epoch being the
>>>>>> same means?
>>>>>> The epoch being equal means that this biaser actually might have
>>>>>> this lock? A comment would be good here.
>>>>> Yes, if the epoch is still valid it means the biaser could be
>>>>> currently synchronized on this object. If that's the case then we
>>>>> must walk its stack and change those monitor records into thin
>>>>> locks. Added comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 785 mark = res_mark; // Refresh mark with the latest value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see what this does either. I had to download your patch.
>>>>>> 'mark' isn't used outside the loop and it is reloaded at the top
>>>>>> of the loop.
>>>>> If the CAS fails, the mark needs to be updated with the new value
>>>>> so that when we get the current biaser (HR_SINGLE_REVOKE case) we
>>>>> actually get the updated biaser and not the old one. If we don't
>>>>> do that we could be handshaking the wrong thread, or worst we
>>>>> could hit an assert in walk_stack_and_revoke() for the "blt ==
>>>>> THREAD", since the old thread could be ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> I found where it's used below now. Maybe once this function is
>>>> refactored a bit, it'll be easier to see for next time. Looks good!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 796 obj->cas_set_mark(prototype_header->set_age(mark->age()), mark);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an later enhancement, there should be some inline function in
>>>>>> markOop that returns the prototype header preserving the age of
>>>>>> the object, but I'll leave it to you to name.
>>>>> Ok, sounds good. That particular line was preexistent but I did
>>>>> added in some places
>>>>> "markOopDesc::prototype()->set_age(mark->age())", which is doing
>>>>> the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 555 RevokeOneBias(Handle* obj, JavaThread* requesting_thread,
>>>>>> JavaThread* biased_locker) ... 565 oop o = (*_obj)();
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was pre-existing your change, but passing Handle* is not
>>>>>> generally done, and is suspicious when it is because it must be
>>>>>> allocated with the thread calling the function. Can you change
>>>>>> this to Handle (not pointer)? I can't think why this would be
>>>>>> done this way.
>>>>> Fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great. I was afraid there was some subtlety I didn't see. Please
>>>> retest with this though just in case. Sometimes bits of wierdness
>>>> have a strange reason that isn't documented.
>>> Yes, I'll retest just in case.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 870 // All objects in objs should be locked by biaser
>>>>>> 871 void BiasedLocking::revoke(GrowableArray<Handle>* objs,
>>>>>> JavaThread *biaser) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see why BiasedLocking::revoke() and
>>>>>> BiasedLocking::revoke_at_safepoint() are so different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The name "revoke" should be something more descriptive of the
>>>>>> situation though, like revoke_for_current_thread() or something
>>>>>> like that (revoke_at_safepoint's objects are from the stack too
>>>>>> for the current thread...) I keep thinking "revoke" should be a
>>>>>> leaf function in biasedLocking.
>>>>> Yes, nice observation. Method
>>>>> revoke_at_safepoint(GrowableArray<Handle>* objs) could be removed
>>>>> and we could just use BiasedLocking::revoke(GrowableArray<Handle>*
>>>>> objs ...) instead, since it's called from deoptimization.cpp where
>>>>> all the objects in the array belong to the same JavaThread. The
>>>>> difference is that we don't do update_heuristics() for the
>>>>> non-safepoint case since it might trigger a bulk operation. For
>>>>> the safepoint case it doesn't matter because we are already at
>>>>> one, we don't have the overhead of requesting it. But I could
>>>>> combine them into one method and do the update_heuristics() only
>>>>> if we are at a safepoint, what do you think?
>>>>
>>>> You could file a follow-up RFE for this if you want, since the
>>>> current version has gone through all the testing.
>>> I need to test again anyways and I think this could be a nice
>>> simplification. I'll test it and try to include it in v3.
>>>
>>>> The change looks great!
>>> Thanks Coleen! : )
>>>
>>>
>>> Patricio
>>>> Coleen
>>>>>
>>>>>> The change looks really good to me and I look forward to further
>>>>>> cleanups so maybe it'll make sense someday!
>>>>> Thanks for looking at this Coleen!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Patricio
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Coleen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/19 12:56 AM, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is v02 addressing comments made by Dan and David.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Full webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8191890/v02/webrev/
>>>>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epchilanomate/8191890/v02/webrev/>
>>>>>>> Inc webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8191890/v02/inc/webrev/
>>>>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epchilanomate/8191890/v02/inc/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patricio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/6/19 7:37 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Patricio,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/06/2019 9:19 am, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/19 3:37 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Patricio,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First thanks for taking this on!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have some higher-level general discussion around this
>>>>>>>>>> before deep diving into the actual code review (not that I
>>>>>>>>>> have much there either :)).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First to clarify how biased-locking works. I'm unclear when
>>>>>>>>>> an object can be rebiased after having its bias revoked? This
>>>>>>>>>> particularly relates to some of your assertions (as Markus
>>>>>>>>>> has queried) after the CAS to update the mark so that the
>>>>>>>>>> bias is revoked, and you then re-read the mark and assert the
>>>>>>>>>> bias has been revoked - what stops another thread from
>>>>>>>>>> rebiasing the object in between those two statements? Is it
>>>>>>>>>> that rebiasing cannot happen, or that it could only happen if
>>>>>>>>>> there were an intervening safepoint which in turn cannot happen?
>>>>>>>>> Once the bias of the object is revoked it will stay like that
>>>>>>>>> forever, it cannot happen that it goes back to having the 0x5
>>>>>>>>> pattern.
>>>>>>>>> Also, once the bias pattern in the prototype header for a
>>>>>>>>> class is revoked during a bulk revocation operation, if there
>>>>>>>>> is an object of that class that still has the bias pattern, a
>>>>>>>>> JavaThread that wants to synchronize on that object will
>>>>>>>>> always revoke the bias first. This is why I don't check if the
>>>>>>>>> CAS succeeded if the prototype of the class does not has the
>>>>>>>>> bias pattern, I just assert that the object is not biased
>>>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Below I describe the cases where an object can be rebiased.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once a JavaThread biases an object for the first time, there
>>>>>>>>> are two cases that allows for that object to be rebiased:
>>>>>>>>> 1) If the epoch in the markword becomes invalid. For this to
>>>>>>>>> happen a bulk rebias operation is needed. This is why I do
>>>>>>>>> check if the CAS succeeded or not for these cases, since some
>>>>>>>>> other JavaThread could have rebiased it.
>>>>>>>>> 2) During a full GC, objects that are biased ( some JavaThread
>>>>>>>>> is set in the biaser bits) could have their markword be reset
>>>>>>>>> to 0x5. This means they will become anonymously biased again
>>>>>>>>> and so will look as if they were not biased yet. As to how
>>>>>>>>> this logic works: At the beginning of the full GC,
>>>>>>>>> BiasedLocking::preserve_marks() saves all the markwords for
>>>>>>>>> those objects that are currently locked and have a bias
>>>>>>>>> pattern. After that,
>>>>>>>>> markOopDesc::must_be_preserved_with_bias() will be called to
>>>>>>>>> decide if the markword of an object should be preserved or
>>>>>>>>> not. If the markword contains the bias pattern it is never
>>>>>>>>> preserved. At the end BiasedLocking::restore_marks() is called
>>>>>>>>> to restore the marks for those objects that we saved before.
>>>>>>>>> So this means that even if an object has a valid biaser, with
>>>>>>>>> valid epoch, if the object is not currently locked it could be
>>>>>>>>> reset during the GC. I'm not sure though if whenever
>>>>>>>>> markOopDesc::must_be_preserved_with_bias() returns false the
>>>>>>>>> garbage collector always does the reset or it just means it
>>>>>>>>> could reset it if it wants to. In any case I've seen that
>>>>>>>>> reset happening when doing handshakes. In fact, this is one of
>>>>>>>>> the reasons why the handshake could return that the bias was
>>>>>>>>> not revoked, since I don't check for the anonymously biased
>>>>>>>>> case in RevokeOneBias.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for that very detailed set of descriptions. I won't
>>>>>>>> pretend to fully grok all the details as I'm not completely
>>>>>>>> clear on the role of the "epoch" or being anonymously biased,
>>>>>>>> but I'm convinced you have a full understanding of such things.
>>>>>>>> :) In revoke_and_rebias it was always a struggle for me to
>>>>>>>> figure out exactly when the "rebias" part could come into play.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The main concern with a change like this (as with all the
>>>>>>>>>> handshake changes) is what new races this may allow and
>>>>>>>>>> whether they have all been accounted for. IIUC the handshake
>>>>>>>>>> will still be conducted by the VMThread so that still ensures
>>>>>>>>>> serialization wrt. safepoints (which makes it simpler to
>>>>>>>>>> reason about things). I've looked at some of the races you
>>>>>>>>>> anticipated (like the "resurrected" thread) and they seem to
>>>>>>>>>> be handled correctly. I'm unable to construct other races
>>>>>>>>>> that might be problematic (but that isn't saying a lot :) ).
>>>>>>>>> I agree that since we are now doing the revocation outside
>>>>>>>>> safepoints there is potential for additional races. But also
>>>>>>>>> one thing to note is that RevokeOneBias, which contains the
>>>>>>>>> logic of the handshake and is now replacing what we used to do
>>>>>>>>> at a safepoint, is not really different from the initial code
>>>>>>>>> in revoke_and_rebias() which is done outside safepoints. The
>>>>>>>>> handshake logic is like executing that initial part but with
>>>>>>>>> the right JavaThread so that if the object has a valid biaser,
>>>>>>>>> then that biaser is either ourselves or we are the VMThread
>>>>>>>>> while the biaser is blocked, so that we can execute
>>>>>>>>> revoke_own_lock(). In fact I was thinking at some point to
>>>>>>>>> combine them in some method (maybe try_fast_revoke()). The
>>>>>>>>> attempt_rebias flag and the update_heuristics() in
>>>>>>>>> revoke_and_rebias() complicated things so I kept them separate.
>>>>>>>>> I have also tried to think on all possible racy scenarios and
>>>>>>>>> couldn't find additional problems beside the "resurrected
>>>>>>>>> thread" one (although it's also not a guarantee of anything).
>>>>>>>>> But that's why I was thinking to check this in 14, so that if
>>>>>>>>> there are any problems we have plenty of testing time to
>>>>>>>>> detect them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes that is a good idea. No need to rush this into 13.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> src/hotspot/share/jfr/metadata/metadata.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it the case that this event is now never generated from a
>>>>>>>>>> safepoint? Or have you just deleted the safepoint_id from the
>>>>>>>>>> event because it might not be at a safepoint? If the latter
>>>>>>>>>> can't we keep it and use 0 to indicate "not at a safepoint"?
>>>>>>>>>> I think the JFR folk need to comment on this part of the
>>>>>>>>>> change anyway.
>>>>>>>>> This event will be created and commited only from
>>>>>>>>> BiasedLocking::single_revoke_with_handshake(). Now, the actual
>>>>>>>>> handshake that revoked the bias could be executed at a
>>>>>>>>> safepoint only if ThreadLocalHandshakes is false. But I
>>>>>>>>> understand that this is true for all platforms so the
>>>>>>>>> handshake should always be executed outside safepoints.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be great if JFR folks review this part.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to grab Markus :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/biasedLocking.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I second Dan's comment about combining cleanup and code
>>>>>>>>>> motion in a big change like this - it does make it much
>>>>>>>>>> harder to spot the real difference.
>>>>>>>>> Ok, already two objections on this so I'll revert moving the
>>>>>>>>> heuristics part. I think I also moved
>>>>>>>>> clean_up_cached_monitor_info() and I will double check any
>>>>>>>>> other movements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I note Dan picked up on the lack of p2i and other stuff
>>>>>>>>>> related to the logging statements, and that you indicated
>>>>>>>>>> they were fixed. I note that all that stuff is pre-existing
>>>>>>>>>> so I'm unclear now whether you have fixed all the logging in
>>>>>>>>>> the file or only the statements in the code you have changed
>>>>>>>>>> or added? Again such cleanup may be best done separately.
>>>>>>>>> I haven't fixed the existing log statements, only the ones Dan
>>>>>>>>> mentioned which are in single_revoke_with_handshake(),
>>>>>>>>> revoke_own_lock(), and in VM_HandshakeOneThread(). Ok, I can
>>>>>>>>> fix the other ones in a cleanup later along with code movement
>>>>>>>>> and the removal of the attemp_rebias flag which we are not using.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay. To be clear I don't expect you to fix all the existing
>>>>>>>> uses I just wanted to clarify which ones you had fixed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 640 void BiasedLocking::revoke_own_lock(oop obj, JavaThread*
>>>>>>>>>> biased_locker) {
>>>>>>>>>> 641 assert(!SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint() ||
>>>>>>>>>> !ThreadLocalHandshakes,
>>>>>>>>>> 642 "if ThreadLocalHandshakes is enabled this should
>>>>>>>>>> always be executed outside safepoints");
>>>>>>>>>> 643 assert(Thread::current() == biased_locker ||
>>>>>>>>>> Thread::current()->is_VM_thread(), "wrong thread");
>>>>>>>>>> 644
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is called "revoke_own_lock" but it can also be executed
>>>>>>>>>> by the VMThread - so its not its own lock. Also we don't
>>>>>>>>>> revoke anything related to a "lock" - we revoke a bias from
>>>>>>>>>> the markword of an oop. I think a better name is needed.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I didn't really like it either. How about
>>>>>>>>> walk_stack_and_revoke() ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Roll on v2 :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/handshake.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 125 log_trace(handshake)("JavaThread " INTPTR_FORMAT "
>>>>>>>>>> is not alive", (intptr_t)_target);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use p2i(_target) rather than cast to intptr_t.
>>>>>>>>> Fixed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's all from me.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for looking into this David! If you are okay with the
>>>>>>>>> "walk_stack_and_revoke()" name then I can send v2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patricio
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/05/2019 2:29 am, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you review this patch that uses thread local
>>>>>>>>>>> handshakes instead of safepoints to revoke the biases of
>>>>>>>>>>> locked objects?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8191890/v01/webrev/
>>>>>>>>>>> Bug:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191890
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today whenever a JavaThread needs to revoke the bias of an
>>>>>>>>>>> object that has been biased by another JavaThread (and where
>>>>>>>>>>> the epoch is still valid and the prototype header of the
>>>>>>>>>>> class still has the bias pattern) it needs to request a
>>>>>>>>>>> safepoint operation. The VMThread inside the safepoint walks
>>>>>>>>>>> the stack of the biaser looking for lock records associated
>>>>>>>>>>> with the biased object, and converts them to thin locks if
>>>>>>>>>>> any are found.
>>>>>>>>>>> This patch uses thread local handshakes instead, since we
>>>>>>>>>>> actually only need to be able to safely walk the stack of
>>>>>>>>>>> the JavaThread that biased the object and not other
>>>>>>>>>>> JavaThreads.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some notes about the patch:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Thanks to Robbin for initial work on this patch and for
>>>>>>>>>>> advice and feedback!
>>>>>>>>>>> - We still execute bulk rebias and bulk revoke operations
>>>>>>>>>>> inside safepoints, since in those cases all the JavaThread's
>>>>>>>>>>> stacks need to be walked to potentially update lock records.
>>>>>>>>>>> - The method revoke_bias() was renamed to
>>>>>>>>>>> single_revoke_at_safepoint(). This method is still kept
>>>>>>>>>>> because there are places where we check whether we are
>>>>>>>>>>> already at safepoint when trying to revoke. In those cases,
>>>>>>>>>>> if we are already at a safepoint we simply end up calling
>>>>>>>>>>> this method.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Handshakes are executed as VMOperations so the VMThread is
>>>>>>>>>>> still involved in the revocation. This means we cannot have
>>>>>>>>>>> different revocations being executed in parallel (same as
>>>>>>>>>>> with safepoints). Ideally we would like to execute thread
>>>>>>>>>>> local handshakes without needing for the VMThread to
>>>>>>>>>>> participate. However, now other JavaThreads that do not
>>>>>>>>>>> participate in the revocation are allow to continue making
>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Run several benchmarks and mostly performance seems
>>>>>>>>>>> unaffected. Measured the average time it takes for revoking
>>>>>>>>>>> bias with a handshake and with a safepoint and numbers are
>>>>>>>>>>> pretty similar varying between benchmarks. Some numbers are
>>>>>>>>>>> shown below:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> specjbb2015
>>>>>>>>>>> Handshakes Safepoints
>>>>>>>>>>> Linux 4ms 4.6ms
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows 11ms 19ms
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> startup benchmarks
>>>>>>>>>>> Handshakes Safepoints
>>>>>>>>>>> Linux 159us 248us
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows 150us 111us
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Overall the variation is not enough to show significant
>>>>>>>>>>> difference in performance, considering also that revocations
>>>>>>>>>>> of a valid biaser are usually a fraction of the overall
>>>>>>>>>>> running time of a benchmark (specially jbb2015). In any case
>>>>>>>>>>> using handshakes allows other JavaThreads to make progress
>>>>>>>>>>> during that time, minimizing STW operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of testing, the patch passed several runs of
>>>>>>>>>>> tiers1-6 in mach5 on Windows, Linux, MacOS and Solaris.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Patricio
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list