RFR(S)[16]: 8246477: add whitebox support for deflating idle monitors

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

Greetings,

Still need one more reviewer for this one. Robbin or Erik O?
Can either of you take a look?

Dan


On 6/22/20 12:35 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 6/22/20 3:47 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> This all seems fine to me.
>
> Thanks! And thanks for the review of yet-another-monitor-subsystem fix!!
>
>
>>
>> A couple of nits:
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp
>>
>> +     if (ret_code == false) {
>>
>> => if (!ret_code) {
>
> Nice catch. Will fix that.
>
>
>> ---
>>
>> test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/whitebox/TestWBDeflateIdleMonitors.java
>>
>>  27  * @test TestWBDeflateIdleMonitors
>>
>> @test is a marker. We don't/shouldn't write anything after it.
>
> Will fix. I got that from test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/whitebox/TestWBGC.java
> which I copied and adapted for this new test.
>
>
>>
>> 29  * @summary Test verify that WB method deflateIdleMonitors works 
>> correctly.
>>
>> "Test verify" is not grammatically correct.
>
> Perhaps: Test to verify that WB method deflateIdleMonitors works 
> correctly.
>
> I'm sorry to say that I also got that grammatical error from
> test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/whitebox/TestWBGC.java which I copied and adapted
> for this new test.
>
> I'll file a follow-up bug for 
> test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/whitebox/TestWBGC.java
> so that we don't lose those fixes.
>
> Dan
>
>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> On 20/06/2020 2:58 am, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>> Ping!
>>>
>>> And a testing update:
>>>
>>> Mach5 Tier[1-8] testing:
>>>
>>>    Tier[1-3] - done, 5 unrelated, known failures
>>>    Tier4     - done - 1 unrelated, known failure
>>>    Tier5     - done - no failures
>>>    Tier6     - done, 1 unrelated, known failure
>>>    Tier7     - almost done, 1 unrelated, known failure
>>>    Tier8     - 56% done, 3 unrelated, known failures (so far)
>>>
>>> The Mach5 testing is taking longer than usual due to resource 
>>> limitations.
>>> So far all failures are known to be in the baseline. There have been no
>>> test failures related to not deflating an idle monitor in a timely 
>>> fashion
>>> (so far).
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance, for comments, questions or suggestions.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On 6/17/20 12:30 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I have a fix for cleaning up testing support for deflating idle 
>>>> monitors.
>>>>
>>>> JDK-8246477 add whitebox support for deflating idle monitors
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8246477
>>>>
>>>> This project is based on jdk-16+1 and is targeted to JDK16.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the webrev URL:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8246477-webrev/0-for-jdk16/
>>>>
>>>> Summary of the changes:
>>>>
>>>> - Add whitebox support for deflating idle monitors including
>>>>   ObjectSynchronizer::request_deflate_idle_monitors(); includes
>>>>   a new whitebox test.
>>>> - Drop ObjectSynchronizer::_is_special_deflation_requested flag,
>>>>   functions and uses.
>>>> - Switch to ObjectSynchronizer::request_deflate_idle_monitors() as 
>>>> needed.
>>>> - bug fix: _last_async_deflation_time_ns should be set at the end of
>>>>   async deflation.
>>>>
>>>> Because this fix is removing support for special deflation requests,
>>>> I'm doing Mach5 Tier[1-8] testing:
>>>>
>>>>   Tier[1-3] - almost done, 5 unrelated, known failures
>>>>   Tier4     - done - 1 unrelated, known failure
>>>>   Tier5     - done - no failures
>>>>   Tier6     - almost done, 1 unrelated, known failure
>>>>   Tier7     - almost done, 1 unrelated, known failure
>>>>   Tier8     - > half done, 3 unrelated, known failures (so far)
>>>>
>>>> The Mach5 testing is taking longer than usual due to resource 
>>>> limitations.
>>>> So far all failures are known to be in the baseline. There have 
>>>> been no
>>>> test failures related to not deflating an idle monitor in a timely 
>>>> fashion
>>>> (so far).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, in advance, for comments, questions or suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>
>