On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 21:47:14 GMT, Chris Plummer <cjplum...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> During [JDK-8151815](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8151815) it was > noted that the PerfMemory _initialized and _destroyed fields should be > volatile, but VMStructs didn't have the needed support for doing that, so it > was left as a future task. @YaSuenag provided a patch at the time to take > care of the VMStructs support. I've integrated it, although it was far from > clean due to some changes in VMStructs, and also moving > OrderAccess::release_store to Atomic::release_store. > > One other change I made to the patch had to do with consistency with using > "volatile static" vs "static volatile". We already have > volatile_nonstatic_field. The patch renamed static_ptr_volatile_field to > static_volatile_field to make it more general purpose, but this was > inconsistent with the name of volatile_nonstatic_field, so I chose the name > volatile_static_field instead. This carried over into some other areas like > the names of the GENERATE_VOLATILE_STATIC_VM_STRUCT_ENTRY and > CHECK_VOLATILE_STATIC_VM_STRUCT_ENTRY macros. src/hotspot/share/runtime/perfMemory.cpp line 200: > 198: } > 199: > 200: Atomic::release_store(&_destroyed, 1); As discussed in the final review thread for [JDK-8151815](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8151815) a release_store is not actually needed here as there is no data that we access based on `_destroyed` being set to 1. Hence also no need for `load_acquire` in `is_destroyed()`. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15373#discussion_r1301124254
