RFR: 8253180: ZGC: Implementation of JEP 376: ZGC: Concurrent Thread-Stack Processing [v12]
Stuart Monteith
smonteith at openjdk.java.net
Wed Oct 7 18:06:15 UTC 2020
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:17:05 GMT, Erik Österlund <eosterlund at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR the implementation of "JEP 376: ZGC: Concurrent Thread-Stack Processing" (cf.
>> https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/376).
>> Basically, this patch modifies the epilog safepoint when returning from a frame (supporting interpreter frames, c1, c2,
>> and native wrapper frames), to compare the stack pointer against a thread-local value. This turns return polls into
>> more of a swiss army knife that can be used to poll for safepoints, handshakes, but also returns into not yet safe to
>> expose frames, denoted by a "stack watermark". ZGC will leave frames (and other thread oops) in a state of a mess in
>> the GC checkpoint safepoints, rather than processing all threads and their stacks. Processing is initialized
>> automagically when threads wake up for a safepoint, or get poked by a handshake or safepoint. Said initialization
>> processes a few (3) frames and other thread oops. The rest - the bulk of the frame processing, is deferred until it is
>> actually needed. It is needed when a frame is exposed to either 1) execution (returns or unwinding due to exception
>> handling), or 2) stack walker APIs. A hook is then run to go and finish the lazy processing of frames. Mutator and GC
>> threads can compete for processing. The processing is therefore performed under a per-thread lock. Note that disarming
>> of the poll word (that the returns are comparing against) is only performed by the thread itself. So sliding the
>> watermark up will require one runtime call for a thread to note that nothing needs to be done, and then update the poll
>> word accordingly. Downgrading the poll word concurrently by other threads was simply not worth the complexity it
>> brought (and is only possible on TSO machines). So left that one out.
>
> Erik Österlund has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>
> Review: Andrew CR 1
I've been reviewing this and stepping through the debugger. It looks OK to me.
-------------
Marked as reviewed by smonteith (Author).
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/296
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list