On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 17:11:30 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <cole...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Partition safepoint checking and nonchecking lock ranks. The nonchecking > locks are always lower ranked than the safepoint checking locks because they > cannot block. > > This moves some leaf locks to 'nosafepoint' rank and corrects relative > ranking. > > Tested with tier1-6 and built and run tier1 tests with shenandoah locally. Hi Coleen, Mostly the remapping seems okay but a few queries below. Thanks, David src/hotspot/share/gc/parallel/psCompactionManager.cpp line 95: > 93: _shadow_region_array = new (ResourceObj::C_HEAP, mtGC) > GrowableArray<size_t >(10, mtGC); > 94: > 95: _shadow_region_monitor = new Monitor(Mutex::nosafepoint, > "CompactionManager_lock", Not clear why this one needed to change?? src/hotspot/share/runtime/mutex.hpp line 55: > 53: nosafepoint = oopstorage + 6, > 54: leaf = nosafepoint + 6, > 55: safepoint = leaf + 10, It is somewhat confusing to have safepoint as an explicit rank now that all ranks above nosafepoint imply safepoint-ing. src/hotspot/share/runtime/mutexLocker.cpp line 253: > 251: def(ClassInitError_lock , PaddedMonitor, leaf+1, true, > _safepoint_check_always); > 252: def(Module_lock , PaddedMutex , leaf+2, false, > _safepoint_check_always); > 253: def(InlineCacheBuffer_lock , PaddedMutex , nosafepoint-1, true, > _safepoint_check_never); Why -1 ? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5550
