On Sun, 18 May 2025 13:53:53 GMT, Guoxiong Li <g...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Albert Mingkun Yang has updated the pull request with a new target base due >> to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated >> changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three >> additional commits since the last revision: >> >> - review >> - Merge branch 'master' into pgc-size-policy >> - pgc-size-policy > > src/hotspot/share/gc/parallel/psAdaptiveSizePolicy.cpp line 232: > >> 230: // Major times are too long, so we want less promotion. >> 231: incr_tenuring_threshold = true; >> 232: } > > You keep the condition `minor_cost > major_cost * > _threshold_tolerance_percent` of the previous code. But it will be strange > when we only read the new code (in the future). What about removing the > condition `minor_cost > major_cost * _threshold_tolerance_percent` and moving > the comment `we prefer young-gc over full-gc` to another place? I keep it this way because I find the structure to be more symmetric, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. If you prefer, I can remove the empty if-branch. (The resulting asm should be identical.) > When is_survivor_overflow is false, the promoted is 0 That's not true; objs that live long enough will be promoted as well, even when the survivor-space has plenty of free-space. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25000#discussion_r2094855103 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25000#discussion_r2094856261
