RFR(L) 8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints (CR8/v2.08/11-for-jdk14)
Robbin Ehn
robbin.ehn at oracle.com
Mon Nov 11 12:41:17 UTC 2019
Hi David,
On 2019-11-11 11:52, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Robbin,
>
> Can you clarify your comments regarding use of Atomic::load and Atomic::store
> please. Seems to me you are suggesting using those for some memory ordering
> affect not for any atomicity effect per-se.
No I'm not. I'm taking about atomicity as in no word-tearing, single store/load.
>
> For example you say:
>
> > 242 jint l_ref_count = ref_count();
> > 243 ADIM_guarantee(l_ref_count > 0, "must be positive: l_ref_count=%d,
> > ref_count=%d", l_ref_count, ref_count());
> > Please use Atomic::load() in ref_count.
>
> But it seems to me that to solve the problem of the compiler not reissuing the
> load of ref_count, you should be using OrderAccess::loadload() in the
> ref_count() method.
>
> Or are you simply saying that given:
>
> jint l1 = ref_count();
> jint l2 = ref_count();
>
> where ref_count simply does "return _ref_count;"
>
> the compiler could treat the above as:
>
> jint l1 = ref_count();
> jint l2 = l1;
>
> whereas if we have ref_count defined as "return Atomic_load(&_ref_count);" then
> the compiler cannot do that?
Yes. (not considering _ref_count is volatile)
>
> I don't like seeing Atomic::load/store being used just to trick the compiler
> that way. I thought we already relied on use of volatile to disallow such
> optimisations and that this was the accepted way to do it.
What would the reason for using Atomic::load/store be if not to guarantee an
atomic load/store ?
Yes, we use volatile for that.
The problem with using volatile is that is also affects ordering.
And you never want to use that ordering (compiler do not re-order volatile
access, but CPU might...).
By using either Atomic::load/store or OrderAccess::release_store/load_acquire
(or stronger), you get the semantic that is appropiate.
Also in this patch there is already Atomic::store/load on "volatile markWord
_header;".
Argubly above should be written as:
jint l_ref_count = ref_count(); // Atomic::load()
if (l_ref_count > 0) {
OrderAccess::loadload();
ADIM_guarantee(l_ref_count > 0, "must be positive: l_ref_count=%d,
ref_count=%d", l_ref_count, ref_count());
}
But since _ref_count could have been changed many times before the second load I
didn't see the point of printing the same value again.
Now there is a zillion places where we use volatile instead Atomic::load/store.
Either those cases have to strong or to weak ordering.
Thanks, Robbin
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On 8/11/2019 11:35 pm, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this, some comments on v8:
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/cpu/sparc/globalDefinitions_sparc.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/globalDefinitions_x86.hpp
>> src/hotspot/share/logging/logTag.hpp
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/markWord.hpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/basicLock.cpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/safepoint.cpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/serviceThread.cpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/sharedRuntime.cpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.hpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vmOperations.cpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vmOperations.hpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vmStructs.cpp
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vmThread.cpp
>> test/hotspot/gtest/oops/test_markWord.cpp
>>
>> No comments.
>>
>> ##################
>> I don't see the benefit of having the -HandshakeAfterDeflateIdleMonitors code
>> paths.
>> Removing that option would mean these files can be reverted:
>> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/globals_aarch64.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/arm/globals_arm.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/globals_ppc.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/s390/globals_s390.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/sparc/globals_sparc.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/globals_x86.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/macroAssembler_x86.cpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/macroAssembler_x86.hpp
>> src/hotspot/cpu/zero/globals_zero.hpp
>>
>> And one less option here:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/globals.hpp
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvm.cpp
>>
>> Unclear if this is a good idea.
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/prims/whitebox.cpp
>>
>> This would assume the test expects the right thing, but that is not obvious.
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnvBase.cpp
>>
>> The current pending and waiting monitor is only changed by the JavaThread itself.
>> It only sets it after _contentions is increased.
>> It clears it before _contentions is decreased.
>> We are depending on safepoint or the thread is suspended, so it can't be
>> deflated since _contentions are > 0.
>> Plus the thread have already increased the ref count and can't decrease it
>> (since at safepoint or suspended).
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp
>>
>> ###1
>> You have several these (and in other files):
>> 242 jint l_ref_count = ref_count();
>> 243 ADIM_guarantee(l_ref_count > 0, "must be positive: l_ref_count=%d,
>> ref_count=%d", l_ref_count, ref_count());
>> Please use Atomic::load() in ref_count.
>> Since this is dependent on ref_count being volatile, otherwise the compiler
>> may only do one load.
>>
>> ###2
>> 307 // Prevent deflation. See ObjectSynchronizer::deflate_monitor(),
>> ...
>> 311 Atomic::add(1, &_contentions);
>> In ObjectSynchronizer::deflate_monitor if you would check ref count instead of
>> _contetion, we could remove contention.
>> Since all waiters also have a ref count it looks like we don't need waiters
>> either.
>> In ObjectSynchronizer::deflate_monitor:
>> if (mid->_contentions != 0 || mid->_waiters != 0) {
>> Why not just do:
>> if (mid->ref_count()) {
>> ?
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.hpp
>>
>> ###1
>> 252 intptr_t is_busy() const {
>> 253 // TODO-FIXME: assert _owner == null implies _recursions = 0
>> 254 // We do not include _ref_count in the is_busy() check because
>> 255 // _ref_count is for indicating that the ObjectMonitor* is in
>> 256 // use which is orthogonal to whether the ObjectMonitor itself
>> 257 // is in use for a locking operation.
>>
>> But in the non-debug code we always check:
>> + if (mid->is_busy() || mid->ref_count() != 0) {
>>
>> So it seem like you should have a method including ref count.
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.inline.hpp
>>
>> Use Atomic::load for ref count.
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp
>>
>> ###1
>> 139 static volatile int g_om_free_count = 0; // # on g_free_list
>> 140 static volatile int g_om_in_use_count = 0; // # on g_om_in_use_list
>> 141 static volatile int g_om_population = 0; // # Extant -- in circulation
>> 142 static volatile int g_om_wait_count = 0; // # on g_wait_list
>> No padding here, aren't they more contended than the fields in the OM?
>>
>> ###2
>> 151 static bool is_next_marked(ObjectMonitor* om) {
>>
>> Is only used in ObjectSynchronizer::om_flush.
>> Here you fetch a OM and read the next field, this do not need LA semantics on
>> supported platforms.
>> This would only need Atomic::load.
>>
>> ###3
>> 191 static void set_next(ObjectMonitor* om, ObjectMonitor* value) {
>>
>> In no place you need SR, in the only places it would made a difference:
>> 345 OrderAccess::storestore();
>> 346 set_next(cur, next); // Unmark the previous list head.
>> and
>> 1714 OrderAccess::storestore();
>> 1715 set_next(in_use_list, next);
>>
>> You have a storestore already!
>>
>> This code reads as:
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> OrderAccess::loadstore();
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> om->_next_om = value
>>
>> So it should be an Atomic::store.
>>
>> ###4
>> 198 static bool mark_list_head(ObjectMonitor* volatile * list_p
>>
>> Since the mark is an embedded spinlock I think the terminology should be
>> changed. (that the spinlock is inside a the next pointer should be abstracted
>> away)
>> E.g. mark_next_loop would just be lock.
>> The load of the list heads should use Atmoic:load.
>> It also seem a bit wired to return next for the locking method.
>> And output parameter can just be returned, and return NULL if list head is NULL.
>> E.g.
>>
>> 198 static ObjectMonitor* get_list_head_locked(ObjectMonitor* volatile *
>> list_p) {
>> 200 while (true) {
>> 201 ObjectMonitor* mid = Atomic::load(list_p);
>> 202 if (mid == NULL) {
>> 203 return NULL; // The list is empty.
>> 204 }
>> 205 if (try_lock(mid)) {
>> 206 if (Atmoic::load(list_p) != mid) {
>> 207 // The list head changed so we have to retry.
>> 208 unlock(mid);
>> 210 } else {
>> return mid;
>> }
>> 214 }
>> // Yield ?
>> 215 }
>> 216 }
>>
>> With colleteral changes.
>>
>> ###5
>> 220 static ObjectMonitor* unmarked_next(ObjectMonitor* om)
>> Atomic::store is what needed.
>>
>> ###6
>> 333 static void prepend_to_common(
>>
>> 345 OrderAccess::storestore();
>> 346 set_next(cur, next); // Unmark the previous list head.
>> Double storestore. (fixed by changing set_next to Atomic::store)
>>
>> ###7
>> 375 static ObjectMonitor* take_from_start_of_common(ObjectMonitor* volatile
>> * list_p,
>>
>> Triple storestore here.
>>
>> 386 Atomic::dec(count_p);
>> 387 // mark_list_head() used cmpxchg() above, switching list head can be
>> lazier:
>> 388 OrderAccess::storestore();
>> 389 // Unmark take, but leave the next value for any lagging list
>> 390 // walkers. It will get cleaned up when take is prepended to
>> 391 // the in-use list:
>> 392 set_next(take, next);
>> 393 return take;
>>
>> Reads:
>> count_p--
>> OrderAccess::loadstore();
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> OrderAccess::loadstore();
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> take->_next_om = next;
>>
>> Fixed by changing set_next to Atomic::store and removing the
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>>
>> ###8
>> ObjectSynchronizer::om_release(
>>
>> 1591 if (m == mid) {
>> 1592 // We found 'm' on the per-thread in-use list so try to extract it.
>> 1593 if (cur_mid_in_use == NULL) {
>> 1594 // mid is the list head and it is marked. Switch the list head
>> 1595 // to next which unmarks the list head, but leaves mid marked:
>> 1596 self->om_in_use_list = next;
>> 1597 // mark_list_head() used cmpxchg() above, switching list head
>> can be lazier:
>> 1598 OrderAccess::storestore();
>> 1599 } else {
>> 1600 // mid and cur_mid_in_use are marked. Switch cur_mid_in_use's
>> 1601 // next field to next which unmarks cur_mid_in_use, but leaves
>> 1602 // mid marked:
>> 1603 OrderAccess::release_store(&cur_mid_in_use->_next_om, next);
>> 1604 }
>> 1605 extracted = true;
>> 1606 Atomic::dec(&self->om_in_use_count);
>> 1607 // Unmark mid, but leave the next value for any lagging list
>> 1608 // walkers. It will get cleaned up when mid is prepended to
>> 1609 // the thread's free list:
>> 1610 set_next(mid, next);
>> 1611 break;
>> 1612 }
>>
>> This does not look correct. Before taking this branch we have done a cmpxchg
>> in mark_list_head or mark_next_loop.
>> This is how it reads:
>> OrderAccess::storestore(); // from previous cmpxchg
>> OrderAccess::loadstore(); // from previous cmpxchg
>> 1591 if (m == mid) {
>> 1593 if (cur_mid_in_use == NULL) {
>> 1596 self->om_in_use_list = next;
>> 1598 OrderAccess::storestore();
>> 1599 } else {
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> OrderAccess::loadstore();
>> 1603 cur_mid_in_use->_next_om = next;
>> 1604 }
>> 1605 extracted = true;
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> OrderAccess::fence(); // storestore|storeload|loadstore|loadload
>> self->om_in_use_count--; // Atomic::dec
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> OrderAccess::loadstore();
>> OrderAccess::storestore();
>> OrderAccess::loadstore();
>> mid->_next_om = next; // Atomic::store
>> 1611 break;
>> 1612 }
>>
>> extracted is local variable so you so not need any orderaccess before it set.
>> Fixed by changing set_next to Atomic::store, removing the
>> OrderAccess::storestore() and changing OrderAccess::release_store to
>> Atmoic::store();
>>
>> ###9
>> 1653 void ObjectSynchronizer::om_flush(Thread* self) {
>>
>> 1714 OrderAccess::storestore();
>> 1715 set_next(in_use_list, next);
>> Fixed by changing set_next to Atomic::store.
>>
>> ###10
>> 1737 self->om_free_list = NULL;
>> 1738 OrderAccess::storestore(); // Lazier memory is okay for list walkers.
>>
>> prepend_list_to_g_free_list/prepend_list_to_g_om_in_use_list does first thing
>> cmpxchg so there is no need for this storestore.
>>
>> ###11
>> 1797 void ObjectSynchronizer::inflate(ObjectMonitorHandle* omh_p, Thread* self,
>>
>> 1938 // Once ObjectMonitor is configured and the object is associated
>> 1939 // with the ObjectMonitor, it is safe to allow async deflation:
>> 1940 assert(m->is_new(), "freshly allocated monitor must be new");
>> 1941 m->set_allocation_state(ObjectMonitor::Old);
>>
>> So we use ref count, contention, waiter, owner and allocation state to keep OM
>> alive in different scenarios.
>> There is not way for me to keep track of that. I don't see why you would need
>> more than owner and ref count.
>> If you allocate the om with ref count 1 you can remove _allocation_state and
>> just decrease ref count here instead.
>>
>> ###12
>> 2079 bool ObjectSynchronizer::deflate_monitor
>>
>> 2112 if (AsyncDeflateIdleMonitors) {
>> 2113 // clear() expects the owner field to be NULL and we won't race
>> 2114 // with the simple C2 ObjectMonitor
>>
>> The macro assambler code is not just executed by C2, so this comment is a bit
>> misleading. (there are some more also)
>>
>> ###13
>> 2306 int ObjectSynchronizer::deflate_monitor_list(
>>
>> Same issue as ObjectSynchronizer::om_release.
>> Fixed by changing set_next to Atomic::store, removing the
>> OrderAccess::storestore() and changing OrderAccess::release_store to
>> Atmoic::store();
>>
>> ###14
>> 2474 if (SafepointSynchronize::is_synchronizing() &&
>>
>> This is the wrong method to call, it should
>> SafepointMechanism::should_block(Thread* thread);
>>
>> ###15
>> 2578 void ObjectSynchronizer::deflate_idle_monitors_using_JT() {
>>
>> 2616 g_wait_list = NULL;
>> 2617 OrderAccess::storestore(); // Lazier memory sync is okay for list
>> walkers.
>>
>> I don't see that g_wait_list is ever simutainously read.
>> Either it is accessed by serviceThread outside a safepoint or by VMThread
>> inside a safepoint?
>>
>> It looks like g_wait_list can just be a local in:
>> void ObjectSynchronizer::deflate_idle_monitors_using_JT()
>>
>> (disregarding the debug code that might read it in a safepoint)
>>
>> ###16
>> 2722 assert(SafepointSynchronize::is_synchronizing(), "sanity check");
>>
>> This is the wrong method to call, it should
>> SafepointMechanism::should_block(Thread* thread);
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vframe.cpp
>>
>> We are at safepoint or current thread or in a handshake, current pending and
>> waiting monitor is already stable.
>>
>> ##################
>> src/hotspot/share/services/threadService.cpp
>>
>> These changes are only needed for the -HandshakeAfterDeflateIdleMonitors path.
>>
>> ##################
>> test/jdk/java/rmi/server/UnicastRemoteObject/unexportObject/UnexportLeak.java
>>
>> Note: if OM had a weak to object instead this would not be needed.
>>
>> Thanks, Robbin
>>
>>
>> On 11/4/19 10:03 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I have made changes to the Async Monitor Deflation code in response to
>>> the CR7/v2.07/10-for-jdk14 code review cycle. Thanks to David H., Robbin
>>> and Erik O. for their comments!
>>>
>>> JDK14 Rampdown phase one is coming on Dec. 12, 2019 and the Async Monitor
>>> Deflation project needs to push before Nov. 12, 2019 in order to allow
>>> for sufficient bake time for such a big change. Nov. 12 is _next_ Tuesday
>>> so we have 8 days from today to finish this code review cycle and push
>>> this code for JDK14.
>>>
>>> Carsten and Roman! Time for you guys to chime in again on the code reviews.
>>>
>>> I have attached the change list from CR7 to CR8 instead of putting it in
>>> the body of this email. I've also added a link to the CR7-to-CR8-changes
>>> file to the webrevs so it should be easy to find.
>>>
>>> Main bug URL:
>>>
>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>
>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-14+21.
>>>
>>> Here's the full webrev URL for those folks that want to see all of the
>>> current Async Monitor Deflation code in one go (v2.08 full):
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/11-for-jdk14.v2.08.full
>>>
>>> Some folks might want to see just what has changed since the last review
>>> cycle so here's a webrev for that (v2.08 inc):
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/11-for-jdk14.v2.08.inc/
>>>
>>> The OpenJDK wiki did not need any changes for this round:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>
>>> The jdk-14+21 based v2.08 version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-8]
>>> testing on Oracle's usual set of platforms. It has also been through my usual
>>> set of stress testing on Linux-X64, macOSX and Solaris-X64 with the addition
>>> of Robbin's "MoCrazy 1024" test running in parallel with the other tests in
>>> my lab. Some testing is still running, but so far there are no new regressions.
>>>
>>> I have not yet done a SPECjbb2015 round on the CR8/v2.08/11-for-jdk14 bits.
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/17/19 5:50 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> The Async Monitor Deflation project is reaching the end game. I have no
>>>> changes planned for the project at this time so all that is left is code
>>>> review and any changes that results from those reviews.
>>>>
>>>> Carsten and Roman! Time for you guys to chime in again on the code reviews.
>>>>
>>>> I have attached the list of fixes from CR6 to CR7 instead of putting it
>>>> in the main body of this email.
>>>>
>>>> Main bug URL:
>>>>
>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>
>>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-14+19.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the full webrev URL for those folks that want to see all of the
>>>> current Async Monitor Deflation code in one go (v2.07 full):
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/10-for-jdk14.v2.07.full
>>>>
>>>> Some folks might want to see just what has changed since the last review
>>>> cycle so here's a webrev for that (v2.07 inc):
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/10-for-jdk14.v2.07.inc/
>>>>
>>>> The OpenJDK wiki has been updated to match the CR7/v2.07/10-for-jdk14 changes:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>
>>>> The jdk-14+18 based v2.07 version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-8]
>>>> testing on Oracle's usual set of platforms. It has also been through my usual
>>>> set of stress testing on Linux-X64, macOSX and Solaris-X64 with the addition
>>>> of Robbin's "MoCrazy 1024" test running in parallel with the other tests in
>>>> my lab.
>>>>
>>>> The jdk-14+19 based v2.07 version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-3]
>>>> test on Oracle's usual set of platforms. Mach5 tier[4-8] are in process.
>>>>
>>>> I did another round of SPECjbb2015 testing in Oracle's Aurora Performance lab
>>>> using using their tuned SPECjbb2015 Linux-X64 G1 configs:
>>>>
>>>> - "base" is jdk-14+18
>>>> - "v2.07" is the latest version and includes C2 inc_om_ref_count() support
>>>> on LP64 X64 and the new HandshakeAfterDeflateIdleMonitors option
>>>> - "off" is with -XX:-AsyncDeflateIdleMonitors specified
>>>> - "handshake" is with -XX:+HandshakeAfterDeflateIdleMonitors specified
>>>>
>>>> hbIR hbIR
>>>> (max attempted) (settled) max-jOPS critical-jOPS runtime
>>>> --------------- --------- -------- ------------- -------
>>>> 34282.00 30635.90 28831.30 20969.20 3841.30 base
>>>> 34282.00 30973.00 29345.80 21025.20 3964.10 v2.07
>>>> 34282.00 31105.60 29174.30 21074.00 3931.30
>>>> v2.07_handshake
>>>> 34282.00 30789.70 27151.60 19839.10 3850.20 v2.07_off
>>>>
>>>> - The Aurora Perf comparison tool reports:
>>>>
>>>> Comparison max-jOPS critical-jOPS
>>>> ---------------------- -------------------- --------------------
>>>> base vs 2.07 +1.78% (s, p=0.000) +0.27% (ns, p=0.790)
>>>> base vs 2.07_handshake +1.19% (s, p=0.007) +0.58% (ns, p=0.536)
>>>> base vs 2.07_off -5.83% (ns, p=0.394) -5.39% (ns, p=0.347)
>>>>
>>>> (s) - significant (ns) - not-significant
>>>>
>>>> - For historical comparison, the Aurora Perf comparision tool
>>>> reported for v2.06 with a baseline of jdk-13+31:
>>>>
>>>> Comparison max-jOPS critical-jOPS
>>>> ---------------------- -------------------- --------------------
>>>> base vs 2.06 -0.32% (ns, p=0.345) +0.71% (ns, p=0.646)
>>>> base vs 2.06_off +0.49% (ns, p=0.292) -1.21% (ns, p=0.481)
>>>>
>>>> (s) - significant (ns) - not-significant
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/28/19 5:02 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Async Monitor Deflation project has rebased to JDK14 so it's time
>>>>> for our first code review in that new context!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been focused on changing the monitor list management code to be
>>>>> lock-free in order to make SPECjbb2015 happier. Of course with a change
>>>>> like that, it takes a while to chase down all the new and wonderful
>>>>> races. At this point, I have the code back to the same stability that
>>>>> I had with CR5/v2.05/8-for-jdk13.
>>>>>
>>>>> To lay the ground work for this round of review, I pushed the following
>>>>> two fixes to jdk/jdk earlier today:
>>>>>
>>>>> JDK-8230184 rename, whitespace, indent and comments changes in preparation
>>>>> for lock free Monitor lists
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230184
>>>>>
>>>>> JDK-8230317 serviceability/sa/ClhsdbPrintStatics.java fails after 8230184
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230317
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached the list of fixes from CR5 to CR6 instead of putting
>>>>> in the main body of this email.
>>>>>
>>>>> Main bug URL:
>>>>>
>>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>>
>>>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-14+11 plus the fixes for
>>>>> JDK-8230184 and JDK-8230317.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the full webrev URL for those folks that want to see all of the
>>>>> current Async Monitor Deflation code in one go (v2.06 full):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/9-for-jdk14.v2.06.full/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The primary focus of this review cycle is on the lock-free Monitor List
>>>>> management changes so here's a webrev for just that patch (v2.06c):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/9-for-jdk14.v2.06c.inc/
>>>>>
>>>>> The secondary focus of this review cycle is on the bug fixes that have
>>>>> been made since CR5/v2.05/8-for-jdk13 so here's a webrev for just that
>>>>> patch (v2.06b):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/9-for-jdk14.v2.06b.inc/
>>>>>
>>>>> The third and final bucket for this review cycle is the rename, whitespace,
>>>>> indent and comments changes made in preparation for lock free Monitor list
>>>>> management. Almost all of that was extracted into JDK-8230184 for the
>>>>> baseline so this bucket now has just a few comment changes relative to
>>>>> CR5/v2.05/8-for-jdk13. Here's a webrev for the remainder (v2.06a):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/9-for-jdk14.v2.06a.inc/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some folks might want to see just what has changed since the last review
>>>>> cycle so here's a webrev for that (v2.06 inc):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/9-for-jdk14.v2.06.inc/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last, but not least, some folks might want to see the code before the
>>>>> addition of lock-free Monitor List management so here's a webrev for
>>>>> that (v2.00 -> v2.05):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/9-for-jdk14.v2.05.inc/
>>>>>
>>>>> The OpenJDK wiki will need minor updates to match the CR6 changes:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>>
>>>>> but that should only be changes to describe per-thread list async monitor
>>>>> deflation being done by the ServiceThread.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I did update the OpenJDK wiki for the CR5 changes back on 2019.08.14)
>>>>>
>>>>> This version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-8] testing on
>>>>> Oracle's usual set of platforms. It has also been through my usual set
>>>>> of stress testing on Linux-X64, macOSX and Solaris-X64.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a bunch of SPECjbb2015 testing in Oracle's Aurora Performance lab
>>>>> using using their tuned SPECjbb2015 Linux-X64 G1 configs. This was using
>>>>> this patch baselined on jdk-13+31 (for stability):
>>>>>
>>>>> hbIR hbIR
>>>>> (max attempted) (settled) max-jOPS critical-jOPS runtime
>>>>> --------------- --------- -------- ------------- -------
>>>>> 34282.00 28837.20 27905.20 19817.40 3658.10 base
>>>>> 34965.70 29798.80 27814.90 19959.00 3514.60 v2.06d
>>>>> 34282.00 29100.70 28042.50 19577.00 3701.90 v2.06d_off
>>>>> 34282.00 29218.50 27562.80 19397.30 3657.60 v2.06d_ocache
>>>>> 34965.70 29838.30 26512.40 19170.60 3569.90 v2.05
>>>>> 34282.00 28926.10 27734.00 19835.10 3588.40 v2.05_off
>>>>>
>>>>> The "off" configs are with -XX:-AsyncDeflateIdleMonitors specified and
>>>>> the "ocache" config is with 128 byte cache line sizes instead of 64 byte
>>>>> cache lines sizes. "v2.06d" is the last set of changes that I made before
>>>>> those changes were distributed into the "v2.06a", "v2.06b" and "v2.06c"
>>>>> buckets for this review recycle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/11/19 3:49 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been focused on chasing down and fixing the rare test failures
>>>>>> that only pop up rarely. So this round is primarily fixes for races
>>>>>> with a few additional fixes that came from Karen's review of CR4.
>>>>>> Thanks Karen!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have attached the list of fixes from CR4 to CR5 instead of putting
>>>>>> in the main body of this email.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Main bug URL:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-13+29. This will likely be
>>>>>> the last JDK13 baseline for this project and I'll roll to the JDK14
>>>>>> (jdk/jdk) repo soon...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the full webrev URL:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/8-for-jdk13.full/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the incremental webrev URL:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/8-for-jdk13.inc/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not yet checked the OpenJDK wiki to see if it needs any updates
>>>>>> to match the CR5 changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I did update the OpenJDK wiki for the CR4 changes back on 2019.06.26)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-3] testing on
>>>>>> Oracle's usual set of platforms. Mach5 tier[4-6] is running now and
>>>>>> Mach5 tier[78] will follow. I'll kick off the usual stress testing
>>>>>> on Linux-X64, macOSX and Solaris-X64 as those machines become available.
>>>>>> Since I haven't made any performance changes in this round, I'll only
>>>>>> be running SPECjbb2015 to gather the latest monitorinflation logs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next up:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - We're still seeing 4-5% lower performance with SPECjbb2015 on
>>>>>> Linux-X64 and we've determined that some of that comes from
>>>>>> contention on the gListLock. So I'm going to investigate removing
>>>>>> the gListLock. Yes, another lock free set of changes is coming!
>>>>>> - Of course, going lock free often causes new races and new failures
>>>>>> so that's a good reason for make those changes isolated in their
>>>>>> own round (and not holding up CR5/v2.05/8-for-jdk13 anymore).
>>>>>> - I finally have a potential fix for the Win* failure with
>>>>>> gc/g1/humongousObjects/TestHumongousClassLoader.java
>>>>>> but I haven't run it through Mach5 yet so it'll be in the next round.
>>>>>> - Some RTM tests were recently re-enabled in Mach5 and I'm seeing some
>>>>>> monitor related failures there. I suspect that I need to go take a
>>>>>> look at the C2 RTM macro assembler code and look for things that might
>>>>>> conflict if Async Monitor Deflation. If you're interested in that kind
>>>>>> of issue, then see the macroAssembler_x86.cpp sanity check that I
>>>>>> added in this round!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/26/19 8:30 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a fix for an issue that came up during performance testing.
>>>>>>> Many thanks to Robbin for diagnosing the issue in his SPECjbb2015
>>>>>>> experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the list of changes from CR3 to CR4. The list is a bit
>>>>>>> verbose due to the complexity of the issue, but the changes
>>>>>>> themselves are not that big.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Functional:
>>>>>>> - Change SafepointSynchronize::is_cleanup_needed() from calling
>>>>>>> ObjectSynchronizer::is_cleanup_needed() to calling
>>>>>>> ObjectSynchronizer::is_safepoint_deflation_needed():
>>>>>>> - is_safepoint_deflation_needed() returns the result of
>>>>>>> monitors_used_above_threshold() for safepoint based
>>>>>>> monitor deflation (!AsyncDeflateIdleMonitors).
>>>>>>> - For AsyncDeflateIdleMonitors, it only returns true if
>>>>>>> there is a special deflation request, e.g., System.gc()
>>>>>>> - This solves a bug where there are a bunch of Cleanup
>>>>>>> safepoints that simply request async deflation which
>>>>>>> keeps the async JavaThreads from making progress on
>>>>>>> their async deflation work.
>>>>>>> - Add AsyncDeflationInterval diagnostic option. Description:
>>>>>>> Async deflate idle monitors every so many milliseconds when
>>>>>>> MonitorUsedDeflationThreshold is exceeded (0 is off).
>>>>>>> - Replace ObjectSynchronizer::gOmShouldDeflateIdleMonitors() with
>>>>>>> ObjectSynchronizer::is_async_deflation_needed():
>>>>>>> - is_async_deflation_needed() returns true when
>>>>>>> is_async_cleanup_requested() is true or when
>>>>>>> monitors_used_above_threshold() is true (but no more often than
>>>>>>> AsyncDeflationInterval).
>>>>>>> - if AsyncDeflateIdleMonitors Service_lock->wait() now waits for
>>>>>>> at most GuaranteedSafepointInterval millis:
>>>>>>> - This allows is_async_deflation_needed() to be checked at
>>>>>>> the same interval as GuaranteedSafepointInterval.
>>>>>>> (default is 1000 millis/1 second)
>>>>>>> - Once is_async_deflation_needed() has returned true, it
>>>>>>> generally cannot return true for AsyncDeflationInterval.
>>>>>>> This is to prevent async deflation from swamping the
>>>>>>> ServiceThread.
>>>>>>> - The ServiceThread still handles async deflation of the global
>>>>>>> in-use list and now it also marks JavaThreads for async deflation
>>>>>>> of their in-use lists.
>>>>>>> - The ServiceThread will check for async deflation work every
>>>>>>> GuaranteedSafepointInterval.
>>>>>>> - A safepoint can still cause the ServiceThread to check for
>>>>>>> async deflation work via is_async_deflation_requested.
>>>>>>> - Refactor code from ObjectSynchronizer::is_cleanup_needed() into
>>>>>>> monitors_used_above_threshold() and remove is_cleanup_needed().
>>>>>>> - In addition to System.gc(), the VM_Exit VM op and the final
>>>>>>> VMThread safepoint now set the is_special_deflation_requested
>>>>>>> flag to reduce the in-use monitor population that is reported by
>>>>>>> ObjectSynchronizer::log_in_use_monitor_details() at VM exit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Test update:
>>>>>>> - test/hotspot/gtest/oops/test_markOop.cpp is updated to work with
>>>>>>> AsyncDeflateIdleMonitors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Collateral:
>>>>>>> - Add/clarify/update some logging messages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cleanup:
>>>>>>> - Updated comments based on Karen's code review.
>>>>>>> - Change 'special cleanup' -> 'special deflation' and
>>>>>>> 'async cleanup' -> 'async deflation'.
>>>>>>> - comment and function name changes
>>>>>>> - Clarify MonitorUsedDeflationThreshold description;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Main bug URL:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-13+22.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the full webrev URL:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/7-for-jdk13.full/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the incremental webrev URL:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/7-for-jdk13.inc/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not updated the OpenJDK wiki to reflect the CR4 changes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The wiki doesn't say a whole lot about the async deflation invocation
>>>>>>> mechanism so I have to figure out how to add that content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-8] testing on
>>>>>>> Oracle's usual set of platforms. My Solaris-X64 stress kit run is
>>>>>>> running now. Kitchensink8H on product, fastdebug, and slowdebug bits
>>>>>>> are running on Linux-X64, MacOSX and Solaris-X64. I still have to run
>>>>>>> my stress kit on Linux-X64. I still have to run the SPECjbb2015
>>>>>>> baseline and CR4 runs on Linux-X64, MacOSX and Solaris-X64.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/6/19 11:52 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I had some discussions with Karen about a race that was in the
>>>>>>>> ObjectMonitor::enter() code in CR2/v2.02/5-for-jdk13. This race was
>>>>>>>> theoretical and I had no test failures due to it. The fix is pretty
>>>>>>>> simple: remove the special case code for async deflation in the
>>>>>>>> ObjectMonitor::enter() function and rely solely on the ref_count
>>>>>>>> for ObjectMonitor::enter() protection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> During those discussions Karen also floated the idea of using the
>>>>>>>> ref_count field instead of the contentions field for the Async
>>>>>>>> Monitor Deflation protocol. I decided to go ahead and code up that
>>>>>>>> change and I have run it through the usual stress and Mach5 testing
>>>>>>>> with no issues. It's also known as v2.03 (for those for with the
>>>>>>>> patches) and as webrev/6-for-jdk13 (for those with webrev URLs).
>>>>>>>> Sorry for all the names...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Main bug URL:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-13+18.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the full webrev URL:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/6-for-jdk13.full/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the incremental webrev URL:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/6-for-jdk13.inc/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have also updated the OpenJDK wiki to reflect the CR3 changes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-8] testing on
>>>>>>>> Oracle's usual set of platforms. My Solaris-X64 stress kit run had
>>>>>>>> no issues. Kitchensink8H on product, fastdebug, and slowdebug bits
>>>>>>>> had no failures on Linux-X64; MacOSX fastdebug and slowdebug and
>>>>>>>> Solaris-X64 release had the usual "Too large time diff" complaints.
>>>>>>>> 12 hour Inflate2 runs on product, fastdebug and slowdebug bits on
>>>>>>>> Linux-X64, MacOSX and Solaris-X64 had no failures. My Linux-X64
>>>>>>>> stress kit is running right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've done the SPECjbb2015 baseline and CR3 runs. I need to gather
>>>>>>>> the results and analyze them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/25/19 12:38 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have a small but important bug fix for the Async Monitor Deflation
>>>>>>>>> project ready to go. It's also known as v2.02 (for those for with the
>>>>>>>>> patches) and as webrev/5-for-jdk13 (for those with webrev URLs). Sorry
>>>>>>>>> for all the names...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JDK-8222295 was pushed to jdk/jdk two days ago so that baseline patch
>>>>>>>>> is out of our hair.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Main bug URL:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-13+17.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the full webrev URL:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/5-for-jdk13.full/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the incremental webrev URL (JDK-8153224):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/5-for-jdk13.inc/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still have to update the OpenJDK wiki to reflect the CR2 changes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-6] testing on
>>>>>>>>> Oracle's usual set of platforms. Mach5 tier[7-8] is running now.
>>>>>>>>> My stress kit is running on Solaris-X64 now. Kitchensink8H is running
>>>>>>>>> now on product, fastdebug, and slowdebug bits on Linux-X64, MacOSX
>>>>>>>>> and Solaris-X64. 12 hour Inflate2 runs are running now on product,
>>>>>>>>> fastdebug and slowdebug bits on Linux-X64, MacOSX and Solaris-X64.
>>>>>>>>> I'll start my my stress kit on Linux-X64 sometime on Sunday (after
>>>>>>>>> my jdk-13+18 stress run is done).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll do SPECjbb2015 baseline and CR2 runs after all the stress
>>>>>>>>> testing is done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/19 11:58 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I finally have CR1 for the Async Monitor Deflation project ready to
>>>>>>>>>> go. It's also known as v2.01 (for those for with the patches) and as
>>>>>>>>>> webrev/4-for-jdk13 (for those with webrev URLs). Sorry for all the
>>>>>>>>>> names...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Main bug URL:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Baseline bug fixes URL:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> JDK-8222295 more baseline cleanups from Async Monitor Deflation
>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222295
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The project is currently baselined on jdk-13+15.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the webrev for the latest baseline changes (JDK-8222295):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/4-for-jdk13.8222295
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the full webrev URL (JDK-8153224 only):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/4-for-jdk13.full/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the incremental webrev URL (JDK-8153224):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/4-for-jdk13.inc/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I'm looking for reviews for both JDK-8222295 and the latest version
>>>>>>>>>> of JDK-8153224...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I still have to update the OpenJDK wiki to reflect the CR changes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-3] testing on
>>>>>>>>>> Oracle's usual set of platforms. Mach5 tier[4-6] is running now and
>>>>>>>>>> Mach5 tier[78] will be run later today. My stress kit on Solaris-X64
>>>>>>>>>> is running now. Linux-X64 stress testing will start on Sunday. I'm
>>>>>>>>>> planning to do Kitchensink runs, SPECjbb2015 runs and my monitor
>>>>>>>>>> inflation stress tests on Linux-X64, MacOSX and Solaris-X64.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/19 9:57 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Welcome to the OpenJDK review thread for my port of Carsten's work on:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> JDK-8153224 Monitor deflation prolong safepoints
>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153224
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a link to the OpenJDK wiki that describes my port:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/Async+Monitor+Deflation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the webrev URL:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8153224-webrev/3-for-jdk13/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a link to Carsten's original webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cvarming/monitor_deflate_conc/0/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Earlier versions of this patch have been through several rounds of
>>>>>>>>>>> preliminary review. Many thanks to Carsten, Coleen, Robbin, and
>>>>>>>>>>> Roman for their preliminary code review comments. A very special
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks to Robbin and Roman for building and testing the patch in
>>>>>>>>>>> their own environments (including specJBB2015).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This version of the patch has been thru Mach5 tier[1-8] testing on
>>>>>>>>>>> Oracle's usual set of platforms. Earlier versions have been run
>>>>>>>>>>> through my stress kit on my Linux-X64 and Solaris-X64 servers
>>>>>>>>>>> (product, fastdebug, slowdebug).Earlier versions have run Kitchensink
>>>>>>>>>>> for 12 hours on MacOSX, Linux-X64 and Solaris-X64 (product, fastdebug
>>>>>>>>>>> and slowdebug). Earlier versions have run my monitor inflation stress
>>>>>>>>>>> tests for 12 hours on MacOSX, Linux-X64 and Solaris-X64 (product,
>>>>>>>>>>> fastdebug and slowdebug).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of the testing done on earlier versions will be redone on the
>>>>>>>>>>> latest version of the patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> One subtest in gc/g1/humongousObjects/TestHumongousClassLoader.java
>>>>>>>>>>> is currently failing in -Xcomp mode on Win* only. I've been trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to characterize/analyze this failure for more than a week now. At
>>>>>>>>>>> this point I'm convinced that Async Monitor Deflation is aggravating
>>>>>>>>>>> an existing bug. However, I plan to have a better handle on that
>>>>>>>>>>> failure before these bits are pushed to the jdk/jdk repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list