RFR: OWST implementation

[Zhengyu Gu]

Yes, it should be a subclass. I will redo the implementation.

Thanks,

-Zhengyu


On 11/01/2016 05:00 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Hi Zhengyu,
>
> I can't say much about correctness etc of the algorithm. However, this
> affects shared code, and other GCs that also use taskqueue. This
> probably means they benefit from improved performance too, but it also
> means they'd suffer from any bugs that are in it. I wouldn't want to
> make that choice for them. :-) Would it be possible to somehow either
> fork taskqueue into a new class, or, if possible, abstract the
> new/changed behaviour? Bonus points for making the impl swappable, so
> that Shenandoah could use one or the other taskqueue. This would 1.
> make it possible to compare them and 2. smooth the transition, i.e.
> make the new queue enabled by an experimental flag, etc. Would that be
> possible?
>
> Cheers,
> Roman
>
> Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2016, 11:15 -0400 schrieb Zhengyu Gu:
>> This is the initial implementation of OWST, which is pretty closely
>> following Google's paper.
>>
>> I intend to minimize the changes in the changeset, due to recent
>> regression SPECjbb number.
>> I think there are areas we can improve the implementation. For
>> example, to have spin master give up
>> its role before goes into sleep, so other worker who detects new
>> tasks, may wake up waiting workers, etc.
>>
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/owst/webrev.00/
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Zhengyu
>>