On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:40:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> `CollectedHeap::is_gc_active()` is confusing, since its name implies _any_ GC > phase is running, while it actually only covers the STW GCs. It would be good > to rename it for clarity. The freed-up name, `is_gc_active` could then be > repurposed to track any (concurrent or STW) GC phase running. That would be > useful to resolve [JDK-8331572](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8331572). > > Doing this rename separately guarantees we have caught and renamed all > current uses. > > Additional testing: > - [ ] Linux AArch64 server fastdebug, `all` Seems like a good change. src/hotspot/share/gc/parallel/psParallelCompact.cpp line 1270: > 1268: > 1269: ParallelScavengeHeap* heap = ParallelScavengeHeap::heap(); > 1270: assert(!heap->is_stw_gc_active(), "not reentrant"); While reading this I see that all these "not reentrant" asserts seems redundant given that we already do these checks in `IsSTWGCActiveMark`. Brownies points if you get rid of them. ;) src/hotspot/share/gc/parallel/psParallelCompact.cpp line 1493: > 1491: PCAddThreadRootsMarkingTaskClosure(uint worker_id) : > _worker_id(worker_id) { } > 1492: void do_thread(Thread* thread) { > 1493: assert(ParallelScavengeHeap::heap()->is_stw_gc_active(), "called > outside gc"); Should this be updated to "called outside gc pause" as you did in `G1CollectedHeap::pin_object`? The same comment goes for the other occurrences below. ------------- Changes requested by stefank (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19064#pullrequestreview-2036315901 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19064#discussion_r1587988542 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19064#discussion_r1587974562
