On Mon, 19 May 2025 05:20:36 GMT, Albert Mingkun Yang <ay...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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.) I prefer removing it; waiting for opinions by other reviewers. >> src/hotspot/share/gc/parallel/psAdaptiveSizePolicy.cpp line 254: >> >>> 252: // survived is an underestimate >>> 253: _survived_bytes.add(survived + promoted); >>> 254: } >> >> The parameter `is_survivor_overflow` seems unnecessary. When >> `is_survivor_overflow` is `false`, the `promoted` is `0`. What about using >> `_survived_bytes.add(survived + promoted)` only and removing parameter >> `is_survivor_overflow` (and the related conditional code). > >> 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. Ohh, you are right, I forgot it at that time. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25000#discussion_r2095457633 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25000#discussion_r2095457808
