On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:35:58 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 09:25:52 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> Maybe this is ok, but I want to look at it more. The reason these functions
>> started out in codeCache is because they looked like other functions in
>> codeCache.
>
> The encapsulation is about defining an API for deoptimizati
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 22:20:43 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiRedefineClasses.cpp line 4157:
>>
>>> 4155: }
>>> 4156: }
>>> 4157: log_debug(redefine, class, nmethod)("Enqueued all nmethods for
>>> deopt");
>>
>> This seems to do the opposite of encaps
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 22:04:47 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add context active assert
>
> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiRedefineClasses.cpp line 4157:
>
>> 4155:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:25:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 01:17:14 GMT, Dean Long wrote:
>> I think you have to describe the scenario that does not work, because I am
>> not sure I see it.
>>
>> For ease of writing, let me call the currently embedded status `status` and
>> the currently embedded link `next_link`
>> (`=>` means im
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:32:54 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/code/compiledMethod.cpp line 128:
>>
>>> 126: if (old_status < new_status) {
>>> 127: if (old_status == not_enqueued) {
>>> 128:
>>> assert(extract_enqueued_deoptimization_method(_enqueued_deoptimiza
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:57:19 GMT, Dean Long wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Cleanup comment
>
> src/hotspot/share/code/compiledMethod.cpp line 128:
>
>> 126: if (old_status < new_status)
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:18:27 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 08:18:27 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:23:46 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:42:59 GMT, Erik Österlund wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add assertions
>> - Fix marked logic
>> - Erik refactorings
>
> Also, in DeoptimizationContext::deopt_co
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:42:59 GMT, Erik Österlund wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add assertions
>> - Fix marked logic
>> - Erik refactorings
>
> Also, in DeoptimizationContext::deopt_co
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:55:04 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> pub
29 matches
Mail list logo
