On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:42:07 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> A fix to reduce ThreadsListHandle overhead in relation to handshakes and
>> we add sanity checks for ThreadsListHandles higher in the call stack.
>>
>> This fix was tested with Mach5 Tier[1-8]; Tier8 is still running.
>
> Daniel D. D
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 02:42:58 GMT, Denghui Dong wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could I have a review of this fix that corrects the oop size value of
>> dtrace_object_alloc(_base).
>>
>> JDK-8039904 added a new parameter 'size' to
>> SharedRuntime::dtrace_object_alloc and dtrace_object_alloc_base, but didn
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 02:42:58 GMT, Denghui Dong wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could I have a review of this fix that corrects the oop size value of
>> dtrace_object_alloc(_base).
>>
>> JDK-8039904 added a new parameter 'size' to
>> SharedRuntime::dtrace_object_alloc and dtrace_object_alloc_base, but didn
On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 15:08:11 GMT, Denghui Dong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I have a review of this fix that corrects the oop size value of
> dtrace_object_alloc(_base).
>
> JDK-8039904 added a new parameter 'size' to
> SharedRuntime::dtrace_object_alloc and dtrace_object_alloc_base, but didn't
>
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 23:39:00 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> A fix to reduce ThreadsListHandle overhead in relation to handshakes and
>> we add sanity checks for ThreadsListHandles higher in the call stack.
>>
>> This fix was tested with Mach5 Tier[1-8]; Tier8 is still running.
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I jus
On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:15:54 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> A fix to reduce ThreadsListHandle overhead in relation to handshakes and
> we add sanity checks for ThreadsListHandles higher in the call stack.
>
> This fix was tested with Mach5 Tier[1-8]; Tier8 is still running.
This pull request
