[CAUTION] RFR(XS): 8241464: [11u] Backport: make rehashing be a needed guaranteed safepoint cleanup action

[Doerr, Martin]

Hi Lutz,

> your change looks good to me.
Thanks for the review!

> Maybe you want to add a small comment like "// Heal unbalanced hash
> (done at safepoint)."
Well, it is still a clean (partial) backport, not a new change, so I don't want to introduce a diff to the jdk/jdk version.

Best regards,
Martin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schmidt, Lutz <lutz.schmidt at sap.com>
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 21:00
> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net; hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR(XS): 8241464: [11u] Backport: make rehashing be
> a needed guaranteed safepoint cleanup action
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> your change looks good to me.
> 
> Maybe you want to add a small comment like "// Heal unbalanced hash
> (done at safepoint)."
> 
> Thanks,
> Lutz
> 
> On 23.03.20, 20:06, "hotspot-runtime-dev on behalf of Doerr, Martin"
> <hotspot-runtime-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of
> martin.doerr at sap.com> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     I'd like to backport a part of JDK-8221967. I'm using a new bug because it's
> only a part of the original one.
>     Original change has the summary "Move redundant table lookup and make
> rehashing be a needed guaranteed safepoint cleanup action."
>     The first part of it doesn't apply to 11u, because the SymbolTable and
> StringTable parts are different in 11u and I don't see the need to change
> them.
> 
>     The second part of it does apply and makes perfect sense. Especially if
> BiasedLocking is disabled (11u BiasedLocking implementation requests more
> safepoints making this fix less important).
> 
>     Original bug:
>     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221967
> 
>     Original issue:
>     http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/2523496f5107
> 
>     New webrev:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mdoerr/8221967_string_table_partial_backport
> _11u/webrev.00/
> 
>     Please review.
> 
>     Best regards,
>     Martin
> 
>