> On Aug 13, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mandy,
>
> On 08/13/2016 01:55 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Kim Barrett <kim.barr...@oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> full:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/jdk.04/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/hotspot.04/
>> This looks very good.
>>
>> Have you considered having JVM_WaitForReferencePendingList method to return
>> the pending list? i.e. make it a blocking version of
>> getAndClearReferencePendingList rather than two operations.
>>
>> waitForReferenceProcessing is really wait for pending reference(s) enqueued
>> (additionally cleaner gets invoked). What do you think to rename this
>> method to “waitForPendingReferencesEnqueued”?
>>
>
> I think the split is intentional. It's a clever way to avoid an otherwise
> inevitable race that could otherwise cause DBB allocating thread to fail with
> OOME prematurely.
>
Ah I see. I initially read that pendingList doesn’t need to be set within the
synchronized block with processPendingActive flag but such race could cause DBB
to fail with OOME, as you clarified.
Then I suggest waitForReferencePendingList (and its JVM function) be renamed to:
boolean awaitReferencePendingList();
a blocking version of "boolean hasReferencePendingList()”. Minor difference
but I think it’s little clearer.
waitForReferenceProcessing - I’d like the javadoc to include more details or
@implNote for example:
This method returns true to indicate that some pending references have been
enqueued. If there are cleaners, cleaning actions are queued to be invoked
e.g. DirectByteBuffer may be deallocated.
This would help the readers to understand what this method is intended to do.
Mandy
> waitForReferencePendingList() is invoked out of synchronized block so that it
> does not prevent the progress of thread(s) invoking
> waitForReferenceProcessing(), while getAndClearReferencePendingList is
> non-blocking and is invoked inside the synchronized block that also sets a
> boolean flag. Code in waitForReferenceProcessing() checks both the
> non-emptiness of reference pending list and the boolean flag while holding
> the lock.
>
> The following sequence of actions (as used in NIO Bits):
>
> System.gc();
> Reference.waitForReferenceProcessing();
>
> ...therefore either:
>
> - completes immediately after System.gc() returns without discovering any
> pending Reference, returning false; or
> - completes after System.gc() discovers at least one pending Reference and
> ReferenceHandler thread processes at least one Cleaner, returning true; or
> enqueues all pending Reference(s), returning false.
>
> When waitForReferenceProcessing() returns false consecutively even after a
> series of exponentially increasing pauses, the DBB allocating thread(s) can
> be sure they have exhausted all options to allocate the direct buffer and
> must fail with OOME.
>
> I have a feeling that these pauses are now unnecessary. Will try to check
> with some experiments...
>
> Regards, Peter
>
>> Grammar question:
>>
>> "there are no more references”
>> "If there aren't any pending {@link Reference}s"
>>
>> - This is the case with zero pending reference, shouldn’t it use “is” such
>> that:
>>
>> "there us no more reference”
>> "If there isn't any pending {@link Reference}”
>>
>> Please update the synposis of JDK-8156500 to make it clear what this fix is
>> (it’s nothing related to JDI). Maybe something like “Move the pending
>> reference list to VM”
>>
>> Mandy
>>
>
