[15] RFR 8245240: Shenandoah: support nesting evacuation OOM scope
Zhengyu Gu
zgu at redhat.com
Tue May 19 12:35:56 UTC 2020
On 5/19/20 8:24 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 5/19/20 2:15 PM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8245240
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/JDK-8245240/webrev.00/index.html
>
> I haven't looked through the state machine in more detail, but just a few coding nits:
>
> *) Do we really want to merge both _nesting_level and _is_evac_oom in the same field? Why can't we
> do it in separate fields? If we do want them to share a byte, I think we have to assert that writes
> to that byte field only happen from the same thread. Otherwise word-tearing bites us.
I don't have a strong opinion, I refactored it out of current layout.
But there is no chance for word tearing, since it is read/write by the
same 'current' thread.
>
> *) This is just "if (level != 0)", right?
>
Yea.
> 88 // Not top level, just return
> 89 if (level > 1) {
> 90 return;
> 91 }
>
Thanks,
-Zhengyu
More information about the shenandoah-dev
mailing list