[11u] RFR 8222015: Small VM.metaspace improvements

[Thomas Stüfe]

Great thanks!



On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
>
> thanks for backporting this item down to JDK11.
>
> I agree with your decision not to take JDK-8209301 and JDK-8208671 at this
> point because they are really large and could potentially cause trouble. As
> far as I could see during your review your changes also fit to the current
> JDK11u source level but just need some manual shuffle in
> printCLDMetaspaceInfoClosure.cpp to find the right spot in the file.
>
> So, after testing runs without regressions, I'm fine with this ��
>
> Best regards
> Christoph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hotspot-runtime-dev <hotspot-runtime-dev-
> > bounces at openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Thomas Stüfe
> > Sent: Montag, 24. Juni 2019 16:25
> > To: jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net; Hotspot dev runtime <hotspot-
> > runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Subject: [11u] RFR 8222015: Small VM.metaspace improvements
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > may I please have reviews for this 11u downport fix:
> >
> > Original Issue:  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222015
> > Original patch: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/fcf83b204c27
> >
> > 11u dev webrev:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/backports/8222015-Small-
> > VM.metaspace-improvements-11-full/webrev
> > Manual changes:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/backports/8222015-Small-
> > VM.metaspace-improvements-11-delta.patch
> >
> > This patch makes VM.metaspace "CDS aware" - before this patch, the
> > printout
> > was confusing and misleading if CDS was enabled and bootstrap classes
> were
> > loaded from a shared archive.
> >
> > Unfortunately the patch did not apply cleanly since in head it is
> preceded
> > by two larger changes:
> >
> > 1) "8209301: JVM rename is_anonymous, host_klass to unsafe specific
> > terminology ahead of Unsafe.defineAnonymousClass deprecation"
> > 2) "8208671: Runtime, JFR, Serviceability changes to allow enabling
> > -Wreorder"
> > First one is a wholesale renaming change, second one reorders initializer
> > lists across the whole VM. Again, I did not want to backport that. I was
> > unsure though. Do you agree with the decision to leave out these two
> > changes?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks, Thomas
>