RFR: 8273300: Check Mutex ranking during a safepoint [v4]
David Holmes
dholmes at openjdk.java.net
Wed Sep 15 01:33:51 UTC 2021
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:21:19 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <coleenp at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This change checks lock ranking during a safepoint. For some reason, safepoint checking was excluded, probably from the days where Safepoint_lock and Threads_lock were used.
>> Because of checking during a safepoint, some locks had to get lower ranks. The CR has the details of which locks these were. The Service_lock complicates things because it's held during oops_do, which may take out other G1 locks.
>> This was built and tested with Shenandoah. Thanks to @zhengyu123 for the changes in Shenandoah.
>> Tests run tier1-8.
>
> Coleen Phillimore has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains four commits:
>
> - Fix Shenandoah mismerge
> - Merge branch 'master' into checkrank
> - Fix Shenandoah mismerge
> - 8273300: Check Mutex ranking during a safepoint
Hi Coleen,
It wasn't clear if you thought you had already fixed the incorrect copyright notices so I flagged the two I saw.
I still have some queries about this - see comment below - but nothing that would stop it from being pushed as-is.
Thanks,
David
src/hotspot/cpu/zero/vm_version_zero.cpp line 2:
> 1: /*
> 2: * Copyright (c) 1997, 2021, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Unwanted copyright date change.
src/hotspot/share/runtime/mutex.hpp line 53:
> 51: special = tty + 3,
> 52: oopstorage = special + 3,
> 53: leaf = oopstorage + 10,
Why do we need such a big gap here? Is there any reason we can't just use the same gap between all named rankings? As it is there seems to be no rationale for the "+ N" value used.
src/hotspot/share/utilities/growableArray.hpp line 2:
> 1: /*
> 2: * Copyright (c) 1997, 2021, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Unwanted copyright change.
-------------
Marked as reviewed by dholmes (Reviewer).
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5467
More information about the shenandoah-dev
mailing list