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

[Doerr, Martin]

Thanks for the review!

Best regards,
Martin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> Sent: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 21:11
> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; Schmidt, Lutz
> <lutz.schmidt 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,
> 
> the backport looks good to me as well.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> I agree. As this is not new code, the backport should be as clean as possible.
> 
> Best regards
> Christoph
> 
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >