On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:14:23 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 six 
> additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Fix comments in objectMonitor.hpp
>  - Move frame::saved_thread_address() to platform dependent files
>  - Fix typo in jvmtiExport.cpp
>  - remove usage of frame::metadata_words in possibly_adjust_frame()
>  - Fix comments in c2 locking paths
>  - Revert and simplify changes to c1_Runtime1 on aarch64 and riscv

src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/macroAssembler_aarch64.cpp line 5341:

> 5339: 
> 5340: void MacroAssembler::inc_held_monitor_count() {
> 5341:   Address dst = Address(rthread, 
> JavaThread::held_monitor_count_offset());

Suggestion:

// Clobbers: rscratch1 and rscratch2
void MacroAssembler::inc_held_monitor_count() {
  Address dst = Address(rthread, JavaThread::held_monitor_count_offset());

src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/macroAssembler_aarch64.cpp line 5357:

> 5355: 
> 5356: void MacroAssembler::dec_held_monitor_count() {
> 5357:   Address dst = Address(rthread, 
> JavaThread::held_monitor_count_offset());

Suggestion:

// Clobbers: rscratch1 and rscratch2
void MacroAssembler::dec_held_monitor_count() {
  Address dst = Address(rthread, JavaThread::held_monitor_count_offset());

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1810987929
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1810989022

Reply via email to