[11u] RFR: Backport of 8216041: [Event Request] - Deoptimization

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi Yang Yi,

thanks for proposing this backport. I don't have a review, rather a maintainers comment.

There was an earlier discussion regarding JFR feature backports, e.g. additional events. See [0] and its predecessor mails. At the time we were reluctant to accept a proposed JFR event backport and I think it hasn't changed until today.

There was a list compiled by Azul about potentially interesting JFR backports [1] which also contains the Deoptimization event but afterwards nothing happened. Since then I believe only bug fixes for JFR were accepted. I don't know whether we should change that for the Deoptimization event.

Any thoughts by people involved with JFR?

Best regards
Christoph

[0] https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2019-December/002276.html 
[1] https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2020-January/002427.html 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net> On
> Behalf Of Yang Yi
> Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Februar 2021 06:27
> To: Yang Yi <qingfeng.yy at alibaba-inc.com>; jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [11u] RFR: Backport of 8216041: [Event Request] -
> Deoptimization
> 
> Gentle Ping :-)
>  ------------------Original Mail ------------------
> Sender:Yang Yi <qingfeng.yy at alibaba-inc.com>
> Send Date:Sun Feb 7 16:54:52 2021
> Recipients:jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net <jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject:[11u] RFR: Backport of 8216041: [Event Request] - Deoptimization
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Please can I request a review of this webrev for the backport of
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8216041 ?
> 
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddong/yiyang/11u-
> 8216041/webrev.00/
> 
> This patch doesn't apply cleanly but is fairly trivial. The signature of
> method `Atomic::cmpxchg` and `register_static_type(jfrTypeManager.cpp)`
> is
> not different comparing to upstream and jdk11u. Simply adjusting the
> argument position and adding extra parameters can solve this problem.
> 
> Best,Yang Yi