Hi Dan, Your changes look good.
Jerry > On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty > <daniel.daughe...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Greetings, > > *** We are wrapping up code review on this project so it is time *** > *** for the various code reviewers to chime in one last time. *** > > In this latest round, we had three different reviewers chime in so we're > doing delta webrevs for each of those resolutions: > > David H's resolutions: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-10.09,10.10.0-delta/ > > mq comment for dholmes_CR: > - Fix indents, trailing spaces and various typos. > - Add descriptions for the '_cnt', '_max' and '_times" fields, > add impl notes to document the type choices. > > src/hotspot/share/runtime/globals.hpp change is white-space only so it > is only visible via the file's patch link. > > > Robin W's resolutions: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-10.10.0,10.10.1-delta/ > > mq comment for robinw_CR: > - Fix some inefficient code, update some comments, fix some indents, > and add some 'const' specifiers. > > src/hotspot/share/runtime/vm_operations.hpp change is white-space only so > it is only visible via the file's patch link. > > > Coleen's resolutions: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-10.10.1,10.10.2-delta/ > > mq comment for coleenp_CR: > - Change ThreadsList::_threads from 'mtGC' -> 'mtThread', > - add header comment to threadSMR.hpp file, > - cleanup JavaThreadIteratorWithHandle ctr, > - make ErrorHandling more efficient. > > > Some folks prefer to see all of the delta webrevs together so here is > a delta webrev relative to jdk10-09-full: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-10.09,10.10.2-delta/ > > src/hotspot/share/runtime/globals.hpp and > src/hotspot/share/runtime/vm_operations.hpp changes are white-space only > so they are only visible via the file's patch link. > > > And, of course, some folks prefer to see everything all at once so here > is the latest full webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-10.10-full/ > > > Dan has submitted the bits for the usual Mach5 tier[1-5] testing. The > prelim Mach5 tier1 (JPRT equivalent) on these bits passed just fine... > > The project is currently baselined on Jesper's 2017-11-17 PIT snapshot > so there will be some catching up to do before integration... > > We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback. > > Dan, Erik and Robbin > > > On 11/18/17 8:49 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> Testing of the last round of changes revealed a hang in one of the new >> TLH tests. Robbin has fixed the hang, updated the existing TLH test, and >> added another TLH test for good measure. >> >> Here is the updated full webrev: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-09-full/ >> >> Here is the updated delta webrev: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-09-delta/ >> >> Dan ran the bits thru the usual Mach5 tier[1-5] testing and there are >> no unexpected failures. >> >> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback. >> >> Dan, Erik and Robbin >> >> >> On 11/15/17 3:32 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>> Greetings, >>> >>> Robbin rebased the project last night/this morning to merge with Thread >>> Local Handshakes (TLH) and also picked up additional changesets up thru: >>> >>>> Changeset: fa736014cf28 >>>> Author: cjplummer >>>> Date: 2017-11-14 18:08 -0800 >>>> URL:http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/hs/rev/fa736014cf28 >>>> >>>> 8191049: Add alternate version of pns() that is callable from within >>>> hotspot source >>>> Summary: added pns2() to debug.cpp >>>> Reviewed-by: stuefe, gthornbr >>> >>> This is the first time we've rebased the project to bits that are this >>> fresh (< 12 hours old at rebase time). We've done this because we think >>> we're done with this project and are in the final review-change-retest >>> cycle(s)... In other words, we're not planning on making any more major >>> changes for this project... :-) >>> >>> *** Time for code reviewers to chime in on this thread! *** >>> >>> Here is the updated full webrev: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-08-full/ >>> >>> Here's is the delta webrev from the 2017.11.10 rebase: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-08-delta/ >>> >>> Dan has submitted the bits for the usual Mach5 tier[1-5] testing >>> (and the new baseline also)... >>> >>> We're expecting this round to be a little noisier than usual because >>> we did not rebase on a PIT snapshot so the new baseline has not been >>> through Jesper's usual care-and-feeding of integration_blockers, etc. >>> >>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback. >>> >>> Dan, Erik and Robbin >>> >>> >>> On 11/14/17 4:48 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> I rebased the project to the 2017.11.10 jdk/hs PIT snapshot. >>>> (Yes, we're playing chase-the-repo...) >>>> >>>> Here is the updated full webrev: >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-07-full/ >>>> >>>> Unlike the previous rebase, there were no changes required to the >>>> open code to get the rebased bits to build so there is no delta >>>> webrev. >>>> >>>> These bits have been run through JPRT and I've submitted the usual >>>> Mach5 tier[1-5] test run... >>>> >>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback. >>>> >>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/13/17 12:30 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> I rebased the project to the 2017.10.26 jdk10/hs PIT snapshot. >>>>> >>>>> Here are the updated webrevs: >>>>> >>>>> Here's the mq comment for the change: >>>>> >>>>> Rebase to 2017.10.25 PIT snapshot. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the full webrev: >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-06-full/ >>>>> >>>>> And here is the delta webrev: >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-06-delta/ >>>>> >>>>> I ran the above bits throught Mach5 tier[1-5] testing over the holiday >>>>> weekend. Didn't see any issues in a quick look. Going to take a closer >>>>> look today. >>>>> >>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/8/17 1:05 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolving one of the code review comments (from both Stefan K and Coleen) >>>>>> on jdk10-04-full required quite a few changes so it is being done as a >>>>>> standalone patch and corresponding webrevs: >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's the mq comment for the change: >>>>>> >>>>>> stefank, coleenp CR - refactor most JavaThreadIterator usage to use >>>>>> JavaThreadIteratorWithHandle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the full webrev: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-05-full/ >>>>>> >>>>>> And here is the delta webrev: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-05-delta/ >>>>>> >>>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan, Erik and Robbin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/9/17 3:41 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a (eXtra Large) fix for the following bug: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8167108 inconsistent handling of SR_lock can lead to crashes >>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167108 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This fix adds a Safe Memory Reclamation (SMR) mechanism based on >>>>>>> Hazard Pointers to manage JavaThread lifecycle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's a PDF for the internal wiki that we've been using to describe >>>>>>> and track the work on this project: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/SMR_and_JavaThread_Lifecycle-JDK10-04.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan has noticed that the indenting is wrong in some of the code quotes >>>>>>> in the PDF that are not present in the internal wiki. We don't have a >>>>>>> solution for that problem yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the webrev for current JDK10 version of this fix: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8167108-webrev/jdk10-04-full >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This fix has been run through many rounds of JPRT and Mach5 tier[2-5] >>>>>>> testing, additional stress testing on Dan's Solaris X64 server, and >>>>>>> additional testing on Erik and Robbin's machines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We welcome comments, suggestions and feedback. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel Daugherty >>>>>>> Erik Osterlund >>>>>>> Robbin Ehn >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
