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

List:       openjdk-hotspot-runtime-dev
Subject:    RE: [CAUTION] RFR(XS): 8241464: [11u] Backport: make rehashing be a needed guaranteed safepoint clea
From:       "Langer, Christoph" <christoph.langer () sap ! com>
Date:       2020-03-24 20:11:26
Message-ID: AM0PR02MB57143AE9BFF4C14B7F1FD2A08AF10 () AM0PR02MB5714 ! eurprd02 ! prod ! outlook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Martin,

the backport looks good to me as well.

> > Maybe you want to add a small comment like "// Heal unbalanced hash
> > (done at safepoint)."
> Well, it is still a clean (partial) backport, not a new change, so I don't want to
> introduce a diff to the jdk/jdk version.

I agree. As this is not new code, the backport should be as clean as possible.

Best regards
Christoph

> 
> Best regards,
> Martin
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schmidt, Lutz <lutz.schmidt@sap.com>
> > Sent: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 21:00
> > To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr@sap.com>; jdk-updates-
> > dev@openjdk.java.net; hotspot-runtime-dev@openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: RFR(XS): 8241464: [11u] Backport: make rehashing be
> > a needed guaranteed safepoint cleanup action
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > your change looks good to me.
> >
> > Maybe you want to add a small comment like "// Heal unbalanced hash
> > (done at safepoint)."
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lutz
> >
> > On 23.03.20, 20:06, "hotspot-runtime-dev on behalf of Doerr, Martin"
> > <hotspot-runtime-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net on behalf of
> > martin.doerr@sap.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     I'd like to backport a part of JDK-8221967. I'm using a new bug because it's
> > only a part of the original one.
> >     Original change has the summary "Move redundant table lookup and
> make
> > rehashing be a needed guaranteed safepoint cleanup action."
> >     The first part of it doesn't apply to 11u, because the SymbolTable and
> > StringTable parts are different in 11u and I don't see the need to change
> > them.
> >
> >     The second part of it does apply and makes perfect sense. Especially if
> > BiasedLocking is disabled (11u BiasedLocking implementation requests
> more
> > safepoints making this fix less important).
> >
> >     Original bug:
> >     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221967
> >
> >     Original issue:
> >     http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/2523496f5107
> >
> >     New webrev:
> >
> >
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mdoerr/8221967_string_table_partial_backport
> > _11u/webrev.00/
> >
> >     Please review.
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >     Martin
> >
> >


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