Hi David and Nan,
Sorry, my suggestion was not aligned with usual practice and added some
extra work. :(
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/1/19 19:42, David Holmes wrote:
On 2/05/2019 11:00 am, Man Cao wrote:
Thank everyone for the review!
Renamed and final webrev:
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~manc/8223177/webrev.02/
No do not rename! Sorry Serguei but for these accesses with
OrderAccess semantics the placement of the acquire/release reflects
the barrier semantics of load_acquire and release_store. So we use
foo_acquire to load foo with acquire semantics; while release_set_foo
performs a release barrier followed by set_foo. This convention is
used throughout the VM for these kinds of methods.
David
-----
-Man
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:21 PM serguei.spit...@oracle.com
<mailto:serguei.spit...@oracle.com> <serguei.spit...@oracle.com
<mailto:serguei.spit...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi Man,
Looks good to me.
Minor comment:
I'd suggest to rename tag_map_acquire to acquire_tag_map to be
consistent with release_set_tag_map.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 4/30/19 18:51, Man Cao wrote:
Hi all,
Can I have reviews for this small change that adds memory fences
for double-checked locking?
We found this race while working on the Java ThreadSanitizer
project.
Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~manc/8223177/webrev.00/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223177
-Man
