RFR (XXS): 8049051: Use of during_initial_mark_pause() in G1CollectorPolicy::record_collection_pause_end() prevents use of seperate object copy time prediction during marking

[Erik Helin]

On Thursday 10 July 2014 11:08:47 AM Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Hi Bengt,
> 
>   thanks for the review. See below for my comments.
> 
> On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 08:49 +0200, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > On 2014-07-02 14:33, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > >    some apparent bug in the G1 pause time prediction logic: when ending
> > > 
> > > an initial mark pause, G1 is supposed to switch to different predictors
> > > for the object copy time.
> > > 
> > > Since the code that sets the flag to indicate to the prediction that the
> > > other predictor should be used for object copy time prediction wrongly
> > > reuses during_initial_mark_pause() that has been unconditionally set to
> > > false before, G1 never switches predictors.
> > > 
> > > The fix is to use the backup ("last_pause_included_initial_mark") value
> > > for during_initial_mark_pause() already used in several places in that
> > > method.
> > > 
> > > Bug:
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8049051
> > > 
> > > Webrev:
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8049051/webrev/
> > 
> > The fix looks good.
> > 
> > One question.
> > 
> > Why do we need these local variables?
> > 
> >    bool new_in_marking_window = _in_marking_window;
> >    bool new_in_marking_window_im = false;
> > 
> > They are only used in one place further down to set the corresponding
> > 
> > instance variables:
> >    _in_marking_window = new_in_marking_window;
> >    _in_marking_window_im = new_in_marking_window_im;
> > 
> > Can't we just move the if (last_pause_included_initial_mark)  check to
> > that place and skip the local variables?
> 
> Yes, we can :)
> 
> New webrev at
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8049051/webrev.1/

Looks good, Reviewed.

Thanks,
Erik

> Testing:
> JPRT
> 
> Thanks,
>   Thomas