On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 06:12:22 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 06:12:22 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:45:11 GMT, Yudi Zheng wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Remove newline
>
> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c2_MacroAssembler_x86.cpp line 677:
>
>> 675:
>> 676: // Check for
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 06:12:22 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:12:32 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update arguments.cpp
>
> Is there a plan to get rid of the UseObjectMonitorTable flag in a future
> release? I
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:02:47 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Use jdk.test.lib.Utils.getRandomInstance()
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.hpp line 126:
>
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:58:24 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 341:
>>
>>> 339:
>>> 340: ObjectMonitor*
>>> LightweightSynchronizer::get_or_insert_monitor_from_table(oop object,
>>> JavaThread* current, bool* inserted) {
>>> 341:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:24:19 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> sr
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 09:24:34 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 09:35:10 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vframe.cpp line 252:
>>
>>> 250: if (mark.has_monitor()) {
>>> 251: ObjectMonitor* mon =
>>> ObjectSynchronizer::read_monitor(current, monitor->owner(), mark);
>>> 252:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:56:29 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Whitespace and nits
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/vframe.cpp line 252:
>
>> 250: if (mark.ha
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:03:16 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> I tried the following (see diff below) and it shows about a 5-10% regression
>> in most the `LockUnlock.testInflated*` micros. Also tried with just
>> `num_unrolled = 1` saw the same regression. Maybe there was some other
>> pattern you
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 05:45:27 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Whitespace and nits
>
> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c1_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp line 84:
>
>> 82:
>> 83: if (
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:45:57 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Whitespace and nits
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 1271:
>
>> 1269: _no_pro
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:05:29 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> sr
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 18:13:30 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> sr
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:05:38 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> sr
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:34:17 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> sr
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 22:40:06 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Missing DEBUG_ONLY
>
> src/hotspot/share/interpreter/zero/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp line 632:
>
>> 630:
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:30:12 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:30:12 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:49:42 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> sr
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:30:12 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:56:32 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> src/h
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:45:10 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 401:
>>
>>> 399:
>>> 400: if (inserted) {
>>> 401: // Hopefully the performance counters are allocated on distinct
>>
>> It doesn't look like the counters are on d
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:52:03 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:58:14 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:57:23 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c2_MacroAssembler_x86.cpp line 674:
>>
>>> 672:
>>> 673: // Search for obj in cache.
>>> 674: bind(loop);
>>
>> Same loop transformation would be possible here.
>
> I tried the following (see diff
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:52:03 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 14:37:50 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> This is a really good suggestion and might help a lot with the performance
>> problems that we see with the table with heavily contended locking. I think
>> we should change this in a follow-on patch (which I'll work on).
>
> I
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 18:55:41 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Missing DEBUG_ONLY
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 341:
>
>> 339: };
>> 34
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 14:27:34 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 105:
>>
>>> 103: };
>>> 104:
>>> 105: class LookupMonitor : public StackObj {
>>
>> I'm not understanding why we need this little wrapper class.
>
> It's a two way looku
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:36:18 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 102:
>>
>>> 100: assert(*value != nullptr, "must be");
>>> 101: return (*value)->object_is_cleared();
>>> 102: }
>>
>> The `is_dead` functions seem oddly plac
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 13:19:02 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 62:
>>
>>> 60: class ObjectMonitorWorld : public CHeapObj {
>>> 61: struct Config {
>>> 62: using Value = ObjectMonitor*;
>>
>> Does this alias really help? We don't st
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:21:05 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Only legacy locking uses the displaced header, I believe, which isn't clear
>> in this code at all. This seems like a fix. We should probably assert that
>> only legacy locking uses this field as a displaced header.
>
> Update: yes
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:32:45 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update arguments.cpp
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 58:
>
>> 56:
>> 57: //
>>
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:36:08 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with 10
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove try_read
>> - Add explicit to single parameter constructors
>> - Remove superfluous access specifier
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:58:14 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:45:25 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 477:
>>
>>> 475: if (obj->mark_acquire().has_monitor()) {
>>> 476: if (_length > 0 && _contended_oops[_length-1] == obj) {
>>> 477: //
>>> assert(VM_Ver
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:44:06 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> I wanted to avoid having to add `NoSafepointVerifier` implementation details
>> in the synchroniser code. I guess `ContinuationWrapper` already does this.
>>
>> Simply creating a `NoSafepointVerifier` when you expect no safepoint is
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:48:03 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with 10
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove try_read
>> - Add explicit to single parameter constructors
>> - Remove superfluous access specifier
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 13:20:27 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 77:
>>
>>> 75: using ConcurrentTable = ConcurrentHashTable>> MEMFLAGS::mtObjectMonitor>;
>>> 76:
>>> 77: ConcurrentTable* _table;
>>
>> So you have a class ObjectMonitor
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 13:12:23 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/deoptimization.cpp line 1641:
>>
>>> 1639: assert(fr.is_deoptimized_frame(), "frame must be
>>> scheduled for deoptimization");
>>> 1640: if (LockingMode == LM_LEGACY) {
>>> 1641:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:30:27 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with 10
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove try_read
>> - Add explicit to single parameter constructors
>> - Remove superfluous access specifier
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:40:31 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/basicLock.hpp line 46:
>>
>>> 44: // Used as a cache the ObjectMonitor* used when locking. Must either
>>> 45: // be nullptr or the ObjectMonitor* used when locking.
>>> 46: volatile uintptr_t _metadata;
>>
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:35:34 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with 10
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove try_read
>> - Add explicit to single parameter constructors
>> - Remove superfluous access specifier
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:44:31 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/basicLock.cpp line 37:
>>
>>> 35: if (mon != nullptr) {
>>> 36: mon->print_on(st);
>>> 37: }
>>
>> I am not sure if we wanted to do this, but we know the owner, therefore we
>> could also
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:34:45 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> I was thinking it was referring to `ObjectSynchronizer::waitUninterruptibly`
>> added the same commit as the comment b3bf31a0a08da679ec2fd21613243fb17b1135a9
>
> git backout restored the old wrong comment. We should fix this separate
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:44:02 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.cpp line 1090:
>>
>>> 1088:
>>> 1089: // Step 2
>>> 1090: // If we were to use wait() instead of waitUninterruptibly() then
>>
>> This is a nice correction (even though, the actual ca
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:39:14 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with 10
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove try_read
>> - Add explicit to single parameter constructors
>> - Remove superfluous access specifier
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:37:43 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with 10
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove try_read
>> - Add explicit to single parameter constructors
>> - Remove superfluous access specifier
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:50:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:09:35 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update arguments.cpp
>
> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.cpp line 1090:
>
>> 1088:
>> 1089: // Step
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:58:56 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 390:
>>
>>> 388:
>>> 389: static bool useHeavyMonitors() {
>>> 390: #if defined(X86) || defined(AARCH64) || defined(PPC64) ||
>>> defined(RISCV64) || defined(S390)
>>
>> Why are those if-d
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:43:06 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add JVMCI symbol exports
>> - Revert "More graceful JVMCI VM option interaction"
>>
>>This rever
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:56:59 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update arguments.cpp
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 390:
>
>> 388:
>> 389: static bool u
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:57:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:06:05 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c2_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp line 343:
>>
>>> 341: const Register t3_owner = t3;
>>> 342: const ByteSize monitor_tag = in_ByteSize(UseObjectMonitorTable ? 0
>>> : checked_cast(markWord::monitor_value));
>>
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:54:23 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:40:45 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update arguments.cpp
>
> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c2_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp line 343:
>
>> 341: const R
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:53:11 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
> When you say 'This patch has been evaluated to be performance neutral when
> UseObjectMonitorTable is turned off (the default).' - what does the
> performance look like with +UOMT? How does it compare to -UOMT?
Most benchmarks are unaffec
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:32:44 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update arguments.cpp
>
> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/c2_MacroAssembler_aarch64.cpp line 318:
>
>> 316:
>> 317:
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:57:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:57:30 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:41:37 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 763:
>>
>>> 761: assert(mark.has_monitor(), "must be");
>>> 762: // The monitor exists
>>> 763: ObjectMonitor* monitor = ObjectSynchronizer::read_monitor(current,
>
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:41:08 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/arguments.cpp line 1830:
>>
>>> 1828: FLAG_SET_CMDLINE(LockingMode, LM_LIGHTWEIGHT);
>>> 1829: warning("UseObjectMonitorTable requires LM_LIGHTWEIGHT");
>>> 1830: }
>>
>> Maybe we want this to
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:25:52 GMT, Yudi Zheng wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with four
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add extra comments in LightweightSynchronizer::inflate_fast_locked_object
>> - Fix typos
>> - Remove unused
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:10:07 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> l
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:44:58 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add JVMCI symbol exports
>> - Revert "More graceful JVMCI VM option interaction"
>>
>>This rever
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:21:16 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> lo
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:13:07 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> lo
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:13:07 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
>> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced
>> `markWord`. This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or
>> lo
> When inflating a monitor the `ObjectMonitor*` is written directly over the
> `markWord` and any overwritten data is displaced into a displaced `markWord`.
> This is problematic for concurrent GCs which needs extra care or looser
> semantics to use this displaced data. In Lilliput this data als
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:58:29 GMT, Thomas Wuerthinger wrote:
> OK. Will there be a CSR or JEP for this?
There is no plan for this, nor should it be required. It’s an internal
implementation.
> When do you approximately expect this to land in main line?
ASAP. Compatibility for the field name i
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
