> On Apr 9, 2022, at 2:44 AM, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@openjdk.java.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:34:57 GMT, Roman Kennke <rken...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I get that. But the fragments and fragment-table are themselves inner
>> classes that take a MEMFLAGS template. I could (perhaps) either use a
>> constexpr MEMFLAGS arg and pass this through, or do at some point a switch
>> like:
>>
>> ```
>> switch (_flags) {
>> case mtServiceability:
>> ... new BitMapFragmentTable<mtServiceability>(); break;
>> case mtServiceability:
>> ... new BitMapFragmentTable<mtServiceability>(); break;
>> default: ShouldNotReachHere();
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> Which seems kinda-ugly but would work (I think), and avoid making the outer
>> class template-ized.
>
> I see what you mean. This MEMFLAGS template parameter is deeply interwoven
> into everything. I'd just live with the current solution. It uses established
> pattern, so at least nobody is surprised.
>
> I think the basic problem is that CHeapObj itself is a template class.
> Rethinking MEMFLAGS seems worthwhile for a future RFE. As I wrote, one
> approach could be to make them a property of the current thread, and
> switchable and stackable via a Mark class. That way, everything allocated
> within a given range of frames would count toward a given category. No need
> to decide on a fine-granular basis. No need for templates. Maybe no need even
> to have a MEMFLAGS argument for every allocation.
While working on something else I ran into a similar problem and found a
different
approach that seemed to work well. I’m planning to explore it in the context of
CHeapObj, but haven’t gotten around to it yet. I should file an RFE in case
someone
else is interested.
