Given John's comments, and the limitation of -XX:-RestrictContended,
adding an additional command line flag, -XaddExports, in 9 to access
@CS seems reasonable. I will proceed with this change as is.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
-Chris.
On 13/11/15 00:08, John Rose wrote:
O
On 12/11/15 13:23, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Beyond the JDK and 166 are there any more usages out there in the
> wild?
It's not much used because most developers aren't even aware of the
problem it attempts to ameliorate. But new systems are becoming
available with many cores and developers are going
On 11/12/2015 12:23 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
It seems a reasonable compromise ( until someone can spend some
quality time on it ) to support the sun.misc.Contended annotation as
an alias, or similar, along with the internal Contended annotation (
required by java.base ). The changes to support s
Thanks John, I understand your position and rationale (Paul actually
clarified this along the same lines to me earlier today). I have to admit
that this would have to be quite an exotic exploit, but point taken.
sent from my phone
On Nov 12, 2015 7:08 PM, "John Rose" wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2015, a
On Nov 12, 2015, at 5:48 AM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>
>> There is a very valid concern, since @Contended changes object layout and
>> increases object size, liberal use might tickle an overflow in HotSpot
>> code. Hence why it has remained internal so far.
>
>
> What overflow? OOM of the heap
On 11/12/2015 08:23 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Hi,
I don’t think anyone disagrees on the usefulness of @Contended.
Beyond the JDK and 166 are there any more usages out there in the wild?
My take after browsing through some of these external libraries is that
most people still use non-portable (b
> On 12 Nov 2015, at 14:48, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> There is a very valid concern, since @Contended changes object layout and
> increases object size, liberal use might tickle an overflow in HotSpot code.
> Hence why it has remained internal so far.
>
> What overflow? OOM o
Hi,
I don’t think anyone disagrees on the usefulness of @Contended.
Beyond the JDK and 166 are there any more usages out there in the wild?
I am not aware of any, grepcode does not report any usages outside of the JDK,
but we may have missed them. The current set of proposed critical internal A
To me, it sounds like @Contended, in its current form, is not quite ready
for prime-time ( inclusion in Java SE 9 ). There is some concern about its
implementation, and I’m not sure how the loader restriction, and the control
through a -XX flag, would translate into SE spec. There is certainly some
You didn't explicitly say that, but it came across like that to me;
apologies if I misread.
So your concern, then, is that the implementation may not be 100% correct,
safe, and robust? If it were more readily available to non-JDK users,
you're likely to see more use of it and thus more "coverage"
Hi Paul,
> There is a very valid concern, since @Contended changes object layout and
> increases object size, liberal use might tickle an overflow in HotSpot
> code. Hence why it has remained internal so far.
What overflow? OOM of the heap? How is that a "very valid" concern? Why
would it be us
Hi,
Without some good argument against it, I think the only issue
> is where (what package) to place it. Carrying it out from there seems
> identical to your webrev diffs, just changing import statements
> and the like.
>
Doug, as you mention java.util.concurrent. I think that should be the place
Hi Chris,
I was under the impression that making @Contended Part of Java SE was
planned for Java 9, but I might have been mistaken.
It is a very useful annotation and I am not aware of issues with it which
would justify removing it from public access.
We might not be voting on it, but I would lobb
On 11/11/2015 09:07 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
So I think the questions we need to answer are as follows:
a) Is it desirable to have @Contended as part of Java SE?
i) If so, is this doable for JDK 9?
b) If ‘No’ to a or i, do we consider @Contended “critical”,
as per JEP 260 ?
@C
On 11/11/2015 07:06 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
While this is up for review, could someone please explain
again why @Contended should not be a public annotation?
Sorry Doug, I don’t have the answer to your question. I was
not involved in the orig
Chris,
I don't know if you (and others) prefer to discuss this here or start a
separate thread, but let me just throw in my vote (again) for including
@Contended in SE. I'm sure you're well aware of the ugly hacks people
resort to for achieving this currently. False sharing is an effect that we
On 11 Nov 2015, at 13:11, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 07:06 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
>
>>>
>>> While this is up for review, could someone please explain
>>> again why @Contended should not be a public annotation?
>>
>> Sorry Doug
On 9 Nov 2015, at 12:49, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 05:43 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should
+1000
sent from my phone
On Nov 9, 2015 7:49 AM, "Doug Lea" wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 05:43 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 813
On 09/11/15 12:34, Peter Levart wrote:
On 11/09/2015 01:32 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 11/09/2015 11:43 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732
On 11/09/2015 05:43 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
http
On 11/09/2015 11:43 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
ht
On 11/09/2015 01:32 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 11/09/2015 11:43 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
On 11/09/2015 01:43 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
>>> see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
>>> to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation p
On 02/11/15 10:45, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
C
On 11/02/2015 02:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
> see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
> to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
Changes look good to me.
But what's t
On 01/11/2015 23:56, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
-Chris.
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/brow
> On 2 Nov 2015, at 00:56, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
> see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
> to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
>
+1
Paul.
> On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:54 a.m., David Holmes wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> hotspot and jdk changes look fine to me.
Thanks for looking at this David.
-Chris.
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> On 2/11/2015 9:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
>> see 8
Hi Chris,
hotspot and jdk changes look fine to me.
Thanks,
David
On 2/11/2015 9:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~
In line with the intended location for other VM annotations,
see 8138732 [1], @sun.misc.Contended should be moved
to the jdk.internal.vm.annotation package.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8140687/00/
-Chris.
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138732
31 matches
Mail list logo
