On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:04:09 GMT, Patricio Chilano Mateo 
<pchilanom...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This is the implementation of JEP 491: Synchronize Virtual Threads without 
>> Pinning. See [JEP 491](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337395) for 
>> further details.
>> 
>> In order to make the code review easier the changes have been split into the 
>> following initial 4 commits:
>> 
>> - Changes to allow unmounting a virtual thread that is currently holding 
>> monitors.
>> - Changes to allow unmounting a virtual thread blocked on synchronized 
>> trying to acquire the monitor.
>> - Changes to allow unmounting a virtual thread blocked in `Object.wait()` 
>> and its timed-wait variants.
>> - Changes to tests, JFR pinned event, and other changes in the JDK libraries.
>> 
>> The changes fix pinning issues for all 4 ports that currently implement 
>> continuations: x64, aarch64, riscv and ppc. Note: ppc changes were added 
>> recently and stand in its own commit after the initial ones.
>> 
>> The changes fix pinning issues when using `LM_LIGHTWEIGHT`, i.e. the default 
>> locking mode, (and `LM_MONITOR` which comes for free), but not when using 
>> `LM_LEGACY` mode. Note that the `LockingMode` flag has already been 
>> deprecated ([JDK-8334299](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334299)), 
>> with the intention to remove `LM_LEGACY` code in future releases.
>> 
>> 
>> ## Summary of changes
>> 
>> ### Unmount virtual thread while holding monitors
>> 
>> As stated in the JEP, currently when a virtual thread enters a synchronized 
>> method or block, the JVM records the virtual thread's carrier platform 
>> thread as holding the monitor, not the virtual thread itself. This prevents 
>> the virtual thread from being unmounted from its carrier, as ownership 
>> information would otherwise go wrong. In order to fix this limitation we 
>> will do two things:
>> 
>> - We copy the oops stored in the LockStack of the carrier to the stackChunk 
>> when freezing (and clear the LockStack). We copy the oops back to the 
>> LockStack of the next carrier when thawing for the first time (and clear 
>> them from the stackChunk). Note that we currently assume carriers don't hold 
>> monitors while mounting virtual threads.
>> 
>> - For inflated monitors we now record the `java.lang.Thread.tid` of the 
>> owner in the ObjectMonitor's `_owner` field instead of a JavaThread*. This 
>> allows us to tie the owner of the monitor to a `java.lang.Thread` instance, 
>> rather than to a JavaThread which is only created per platform thread. The 
>> tid is already a 64 bit field so we can ignore issues of the counter 
>> wrapping around.
>> 
>> #### General notes about this part:
>> 
>> - Since virtual th...
>
> Patricio Chilano Mateo has updated the pull request incrementally with one 
> additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Fix comment in VThreadWaitReenter

src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c1_Runtime1_x86.cpp line 643:

> 641: uint Runtime1::runtime_blob_current_thread_offset(frame f) {
> 642: #ifdef _LP64
> 643:   return r15_off / 2;

r15_off is a byte offset, so this returns a 16-bit short offset?  I think we 
need a comment here to explain the / 2 and what this returns.

src/hotspot/cpu/x86/frame_x86.cpp line 431:

> 429:   if (cb == Runtime1::blob_for(C1StubId::monitorenter_id) ||
> 430:       cb == Runtime1::blob_for(C1StubId::monitorenter_nofpu_id)) {
> 431:     thread_addr = (JavaThread**)(f.sp() + 
> Runtime1::runtime_blob_current_thread_offset(f));

So this expects an offset in intptr_t units from 
runtime_blob_current_thread_offset(), but I thought it took a byte offset and 
then divided by 2.  I'm confused.

src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_Runtime1.hpp line 138:

> 136:   static void initialize_pd();
> 137: 
> 138:   static uint runtime_blob_current_thread_offset(frame f);

I think this returns an offset in wordSize units, but it's not documented.  In 
some places we always return an offset in bytes and let the caller convert.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1819982432
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1819983752
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1819981522

Reply via email to