On 11/28/17 3:01 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Just for the record ...
On 23/11/2017 6:20 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Thanks Dan for dragging this freight train to the docks, it's time to
ship it!
I agree. The latest delta seems fine to me.
Thanks!
Created follow-up bug:
8191809: Threads::number_o
Just for the record ...
On 23/11/2017 6:20 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Thanks Dan for dragging this freight train to the docks, it's time to
ship it!
I agree. The latest delta seems fine to me.
Created follow-up bug:
8191809: Threads::number_of_threads() is not 'MT-safe'
https://bugs.openjdk.java.
Greetings,
The Thread-SMR bits were pushed to jdk/hs late last night!
Mach5 Tier[1-5] on the exact bits that were pushed showed
no unexpected failures. I've looked at the jdk/hs CI pipeline
test results for my push and for the push before and after
mine and I don't see anything that worries me t
On 11/23/17 3:20 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Thanks Dan for dragging this freight train to the docks, it's time to
ship it!
Working on that very thing today... will likely push late today (my TZ)...
Created follow-up bug:
8191809: Threads::number_of_threads() is not 'MT-safe'
https://bugs.openjdk.
Thanks Dan for dragging this freight train to the docks, it's time to ship it!
Created follow-up bug:
8191809: Threads::number_of_threads() is not 'MT-safe'
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191809
/Robbin
On 2017-11-23 03:16, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I've made minor twea
Greetings,
I've made minor tweaks to the Thread-SMR project based on the remaining
code review comments over the last couple of days. I've also rebased the
project to jdk/hs bits as of mid-afternoon (my TZ) on 2017.11.22. I'm
running baseline Mach5 Tier[1-5] testing and prototype Mach5 Tier[1-5]
Thanks Jerry!
Dan
On 11/22/17 3:21 PM, Gerald Thornbrugh wrote:
Hi Dan,
Your changes look good.
Jerry
On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
Greetings,
*** We are wrapping up code review on this project so it is time ***
*** for the various code reviewers to chime in o
Hi Dan,
Your changes look good.
Jerry
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty
> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> *** We are wrapping up code review on this project so it is time ***
> *** for the various code reviewers to chime in one last time. ***
>
> In this latest round, we had thre
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 18:36, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Thanks for keeping all the OpenJDK aliases!
On 11/21/17 12:24 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/21/17 11:28 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/20/17 3:12 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
I can't fi
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 17:28, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Hi Coleen!
Thanks for making time to review the Thread-SMR stuff again!!
I have added back the other three OpenJDK aliases... This review is
being done on _four_ different OpenJDK aliases.
As always, replies are embedded bel
Hi Dan,
On 2017-11-22 13:53, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/22/17 4:07 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 17:28, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Hi Coleen!
Thanks for making time to review the Thread-SMR stuff again!!
I have added back the other three OpenJDK aliases.
On 11/22/17 8:02 AM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/22/17 7:54 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/22/17 4:48 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 18:36, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Thanks for keeping all the OpenJDK aliases!
On 11/21/17 12:24 PM, coleen
On 11/22/17 8:06 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi Dan,
On 2017-11-22 13:53, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/22/17 4:07 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 17:28, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Hi Coleen!
Thanks for making time to review the Thread-SMR stuff again!!
I have
Adding back the other OpenJDK aliases...
On 11/22/17 8:01 AM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/22/17 7:51 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/21/17 11:26 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Dan,
On 22/11/2017 10:12 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
*** We are wrapping up code rev
On 11/22/17 7:54 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/22/17 4:48 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 18:36, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Thanks for keeping all the OpenJDK aliases!
On 11/21/17 12:24 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/21/17 11:28 AM, Dan
On 11/22/17 4:48 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 18:36, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Thanks for keeping all the OpenJDK aliases!
On 11/21/17 12:24 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/21/17 11:28 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/20/17 3:12 PM, cole
On 11/22/17 4:07 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi,
Some replies...
On 2017-11-21 17:28, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Hi Coleen!
Thanks for making time to review the Thread-SMR stuff again!!
I have added back the other three OpenJDK aliases... This review is
being done on _four_ different OpenJDK a
On 11/21/17 11:26 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Dan,
On 22/11/2017 10:12 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
*** We are wrapping up code review on this project so it is time ***
*** for the various code reviewers to chime in one last time. ***
In this latest round, we had three different r
Hi Dan,
On 22/11/2017 10:12 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
*** We are wrapping up code review on this project so it is time ***
*** for the various code reviewers to chime in one last time. ***
In this latest round, we had three different reviewers chime in so we're
doing delta webr
Greetings,
*** We are wrapping up code review on this project so it is time ***
*** for the various code reviewers to chime in one last time. ***
In this latest round, we had three different reviewers chime in so we're
doing delta webrevs for each of those resolutions:
David H's resolutions:
h
Thanks for keeping all the OpenJDK aliases!
On 11/21/17 12:24 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/21/17 11:28 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Hi Coleen!
Thanks for making time to review the Thread-SMR stuff again!!
I have added back the other three OpenJDK aliases... This review i
Adding back the missing OpenJDK aliases...
On 11/21/17 11:14 AM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/20/17 8:50 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 11/20/17 12:51 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Dan,
Figured I'd better cast an eye over this again before it gets pushed :)
Thanks for review
On 11/21/17 11:28 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Hi Coleen!
Thanks for making time to review the Thread-SMR stuff again!!
I have added back the other three OpenJDK aliases... This review is
being done on _four_ different OpenJDK aliases.
As always, replies are embedded below...
On 11/20/17
Hi Coleen!
Thanks for making time to review the Thread-SMR stuff again!!
I have added back the other three OpenJDK aliases... This review is
being done on _four_ different OpenJDK aliases.
As always, replies are embedded below...
On 11/20/17 3:12 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
http
Hi Robin W!
Welcome to the Thread-SMR party!!
On 11/20/17 4:48 AM, Robin Westberg wrote:
Hi Dan,
Overall I must say this looks very nice, can’t wait to use it! (Also a
disclaimer: not a reviewer, and have not looked at the gc or jmvti specific
changes nor the tests (yet)).
Code reviews are
On 11/20/17 9:13 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Dan,
Just to be clear my comment about use of jint's was not about expected
size but the fact you were using a j-type instead of a C++ type when
the field is not a Java field. (Coleen has been on a crusade to remove
j-types from where they don't bel
Hi Dan,
Just to be clear my comment about use of jint's was not about expected
size but the fact you were using a j-type instead of a C++ type when the
field is not a Java field. (Coleen has been on a crusade to remove
j-types from where they don't belong - and they were removed from the
Atom
On 11/20/17 12:51 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Dan,
Figured I'd better cast an eye over this again before it gets pushed :)
Thanks for reviewing again!!
Only one thing (repeated many times) jumped out at me and apologies if
this has already been debated back and forth. I missed the exchange
Hi Dan,
Overall I must say this looks very nice, can’t wait to use it! (Also a
disclaimer: not a reviewer, and have not looked at the gc or jmvti specific
changes nor the tests (yet)).
Didn’t spot any real issues, just a few small efficiency related things:
src/hotspot/share/runtime/biasedLoc
Hi Dan,
Figured I'd better cast an eye over this again before it gets pushed :)
Only one thing (repeated many times) jumped out at me and apologies if
this has already been debated back and forth. I missed the exchange
where the for loop iteration was rewritten into this unusual form:
for (J
Greetings,
Testing of the last round of changes revealed a hang in one of the new
TLH tests. Robbin has fixed the hang, updated the existing TLH test, and
added another TLH test for good measure.
Here is the updated full webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-09-full/
Greetings,
Robbin rebased the project last night/this morning to merge with Thread
Local Handshakes (TLH) and also picked up additional changesets up thru:
Changeset: fa736014cf28
Author:cjplummer
Date: 2017-11-14 18:08 -0800
URL:http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/hs/rev/fa736014cf28
8191
Greetings,
I rebased the project to the 2017.11.10 jdk/hs PIT snapshot.
(Yes, we're playing chase-the-repo...)
Here is the updated full webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-07-full/
Unlike the previous rebase, there were no changes required to the
open code to get th
Greetings,
I rebased the project to the 2017.10.26 jdk10/hs PIT snapshot.
Here are the updated webrevs:
Here's the mq comment for the change:
Rebase to 2017.10.25 PIT snapshot.
Here is the full webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-06-full/
And here is the delta
The jdk10-05-full bits have passed JPRT testing (hs-tier1 testing) and
hs-tier[2-5] testing via Mach 5. No unexpected test failures.
Dan
On 11/8/17 1:05 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
Resolving one of the code review comments (from both Stefan K and Coleen)
on jdk10-04-full requir
Greetings,
Resolving one of the code review comments (from both Stefan K and Coleen)
on jdk10-04-full required quite a few changes so it is being done as a
standalone patch and corresponding webrevs:
Here's the mq comment for the change:
stefank, coleenp CR - refactor most JavaThreadIterator
Added back the other three OpenJDK aliases being used for this review...
Coleen, thanks for chiming in on this review thread. Sorry for the
delay in responding... I was on vacation...
On 10/11/17 11:32 AM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi, From my initial look at this, I really like ne
Greetings,
This code review from Stefan Karlsson was originally posted on an Oracle
internal alias that we use for discussing HotSpot SMR development issues.
That subject was: "Thread-SMR (8167108)(JDK10): CR round 0 changes". I did
not have time to address Stefan's review before I went on vacati
Many thanks to the folks that reviewed this internally and provided
much appreciated feedback:
- Daniel Daugherty
- David Holmes
- Erik Osterlund
- Jerry Thornbrugh
- Karen Kinnear
- Kim Barrett
- Robbin Ehn
- Serguei Spitsyn
- Stefan Karlson
Since there are three contributing authors, we have b
Greetings,
We have a (eXtra Large) fix for the following bug:
8167108 inconsistent handling of SR_lock can lead to crashes
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167108
This fix adds a Safe Memory Reclamation (SMR) mechanism based on
Hazard Pointers to manage JavaThread lifecycle.
Here's a
40 matches
Mail list logo
