On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:26:58 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>> Ah, hm. Indeed! Separate PR? There is some light cleanup in G1 that can be
>> associated with it. This PR would keep with just a mechanical rename.
>
> Sounds like a good idea.
Filed: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8331719 -- I'll
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:40:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC
> phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good
> to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:40:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC
> phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good
> to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:40:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC
> phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good
> to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:40:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC
> phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good
> to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be
On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:23:21 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/gc/parallel/psParallelCompact.cpp line 1270:
>>
>>> 1268:
>>> 1269: ParallelScavengeHeap* heap = ParallelScavengeHeap::heap();
>>> 1270: assert(!heap->is_stw_gc_active(), "not reentrant");
>>
>> While reading
On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:04:44 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_
>> GC phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be
>> good to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:40:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC
> phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good
> to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be
On Thu, 2 May 2024 16:56:11 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_
>> GC phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be
>> good to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:40:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC
> phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good
> to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be
`CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC
phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good
to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be
repurposed to track any (concurrent or STW) GC phase running.
11 matches
Mail list logo