[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-hotspot-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR (S) 8251336: Shenandoah: assert "only get here when SATB active" after JDK-8244997
From:       Coleen Phillimore <coleen.phillimore () oracle ! com>
Date:       2020-08-12 11:53:07
Message-ID: b3da0e4e-af0d-e90b-b506-5680cc1d3a9f () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]



On 8/12/20 12:00 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 2020, at 5:02 PM, Coleen Phillimore <coleen.phillimore@oracle.com> \
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/11/20 4:45 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 8/11/20 1:48 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Coleen Phillimore \
> > > > > <coleen.phillimore@oracle.com> wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Kim's suggestion for this change looks really good.  I'm re-testing this \
> > > > > now: 
> > > > > open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/2020/8251336.02/webrev
> > > > > bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251336
> > > > In release_oop_handles, because Service_lock is a "special" lock and
> > > > touched in lots of places, I'd prefer the deletion not happen under
> > > > the lock.  (I realize this uglifies the code a little bit.)
> > > Because there was no performance reason to use lock free code for this, I add \
> > > to and clean out the linked list under the Service_lock.  I chose a simple \
> > > implementation because there was no performance or correctness issue to do \
> > > otherwise. 
> > > I'd rather not change this to be ugly unless it's proven to not be correct or \
> > > performant.
> > Scratch that.  I see what you mean. Like:
> > 
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/2020/8251336.03.incr/webrev/index.html
> > 
> > (sorry I had some other questions about making this lock free).
> > 
> > I'm re-testing this version now.
> Yes, exactly.  That version looks good.

This version passes all the tests so no surprises.   Thanks Kim!
Coleen
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]