On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:36:37 GMT, Jorn Vernee <[email protected]> wrote:

> See the JBS issue for the full explanation of the issue.
> 
> Now that https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25315 was integrated, we are 
> able to reliably scan for session oops in a frame, and only deoptimize those 
> frames where the oop is live.
> 
> I ran the `ConcurrentClose` benchmark before and after this patch, and these 
> were the results:
> 
> 
> Before:
> 
> Benchmark                                        Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  
> Units
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose                      avgt   10  10.139 ± 0.416  
> us/op
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose:closing              avgt   10  29.288 ± 1.257  
> us/op
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose:memorySegmentAccess  avgt   10   0.651 ± 0.030  
> us/op
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose:otherAccess          avgt   10   0.478 ± 0.026  
> us/op
> 
> After:
> 
> Benchmark                                        Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  
> Units
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose                      avgt   10   9.860 ± 0.387  
> us/op
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose:closing              avgt   10  28.641 ± 1.175  
> us/op
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose:memorySegmentAccess  avgt   10   0.470 ± 0.013  
> us/op
> ConcurrentClose.sharedClose:otherAccess          avgt   10   0.468 ± 0.015  
> us/op
> 
> 
> We can see that now the unrelated memory access in `memorySegmentAccess` is 
> no longer being affected by a scope being closed in another thread.
> 
> Testing: `jdk_foreign` suite, and I repeat ran 
> `java/foreign/TestHandshake.java` 50 times as well, which is our stress test 
> for shared scopes.
> 
> ---------
> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK 
> Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).

Totally agree with this change. It's something we always wanted to do, but 
couldn't due to JDK-8290892. The structure of your patch looks fine, but I'll 
leave the review of the `is_session_live` to a VM engineer :-)

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30926#pullrequestreview-4280855284

Reply via email to