8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation #17331

vnkozlov · 2024-01-09T22:57:27Z

Corner case with a local (not escaped) object used for synchronization. C2 Escape Analysis thinks that it can eliminate locks for it. In most cases it is true but not in this case.

        for (int i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
            Object o = new Object();
            synchronized (o) { // monitorenter
                // Trigger OSR compilation
                for (int j = 0; j < 100_000; ++j) {

The test has nested loop which trigger OSR compilation. The locked object comes from Interpreter into compiled OSR code. During parsing C2 creates an other non escaped object and correctly merge both together (with Phi node) so that non escaped object is not scalar replaceable. Because it does not globally escapes EA still removes locks for it and, as result, also for merged locked object from Interpreter which is the bug.

The fix is to mark BoxLock node associated with OSR entry as Unbalanced to prevent EA from removing locks/unlocks from it. It is based on JDK-8324969 changes.

Added regression test prepared by @TobiHartmann. Tested tier1-5, xcomp and stress.
Performance testing show no difference.

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation (Bug - P3)

Reviewers

Emanuel Peter (@eme64 - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to d4d55e03
Dean Long (@dean-long - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to d4d55e03
Vladimir Ivanov (@iwanowww - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to d4d55e03

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17331/head:pull/17331
$ git checkout pull/17331

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/17331
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17331/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 17331

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 17331

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17331.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2024-01-09T22:58:24Z

👋 Welcome back kvn! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2024-01-09T23:00:18Z

@vnkozlov The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

hotspot-compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2024-01-09T23:36:38Z

Webrevs

dean-long · 2024-01-10T02:07:29Z

I'm wondering if there is a simpler solution. What if in Parse::load_interpreter_state we maark the lock objects from the interpreter as global escape?

vnkozlov · 2024-01-10T18:27:02Z

I'm wondering if there is a simpler solution. What if in Parse::load_interpreter_state we maark the lock objects from the interpreter as global escape?

Thank you, Dean, for looking on changes.

You are correct, we can mark created BoxLock node in Parse::load_interpreter_state as having escaped object.

But in general case it could be only dead path where such object is referenced. Also it could be other cases where EA think that object escapes on one of paths.

I wanted to check graph only after some transformations which happens before EA and use EA analysis to find escaped objects.

dean-long · 2024-01-10T23:02:28Z

I was thinking that the OSR situation is similar to this:

        for (int i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
            Object o = osr ? static_volatile_field /* black hole, can't eliminate */ : new Object() /* can eliminate */;
            synchronized (o) { // monitorenter
                // Trigger OSR compilation
                for (int j = 0; j < 100_000; ++j) {

but maybe we can do better. If C2 can eliminate allocations/locks for non-escaping objects, and that works in one direction C2 --> interpreter (deopt), then the reverse direction, interpreter --> C2 (OSR) might also be made to work. In other words, I think we could eliminate the lock, even in the OSR case. We know from EA that the object coming from the interpreter does not escape, so if load_interpreter_state did the reverse of deopt, we would end up with a scalar-replaced object. Deopt does scalar-replaced object --> materialized, so OSR would need to do materialized --> scalar-replaced object. The fields of the scalar-replaced object would be populated from the fields of the interpreter object, but ignoring fields with a default (0) value. Assuming I'm right, and this could work, that doesn't mean it's worth doing. I'm just throwing this idea out mostly for completeness.

dean-long · 2024-01-10T23:42:21Z

Nevermind, object fields from the interpreter could have any value, so my idea doesn't work.

vnkozlov · 2024-01-10T23:58:36Z

"We know from EA that the object coming from the interpreter does not escape" - we don't know what happens in Interpreter to this object. There is no information where this object is coming from (no method and no bci info). We only know that we have monitor at slot 0 which uses this object. Yes, we can do bytecode analysis to determine that but it is a lot more code.

There could be other, more complicated, ways to remove locks for this case. I was thinking about splitting unlock(obj) through Phi node to keep separate unlock for object coming from Interpreter. Unfortunately it is not enough. We need also to keep separate synchronization blocks defined by BoxLock node. Otherwise we still eliminate all locks/unlocks during locks elimination macro.cpp#L1946.

Note, we can't eliminate only part of locks/unlocks associated with one synchronization block. Otherwise we can't guarantee that we have balanced locks and unlocks (we had bugs about it). So we either eliminate or keep all of them.

I think my fix is conservative solution for this issue.

iwanowww · 2024-01-11T00:14:38Z

I think my fix is conservative solution for this issue.

It's still not clear to me why conservatively marking all objects coming from interpreter as globally escaped wouldn't work (what Dean initially proposed).

My reading of your response is that it may be way too conservative:

But in general case it could be only dead path where such object is referenced.

Is it your main concern?

vnkozlov · 2024-01-11T00:35:13Z

I think my fix is conservative solution for this issue.

It's still not clear to me why conservatively marking all objects coming from interpreter as globally escaped wouldn't work (what Dean initially proposed).

It would work only for this OSR case.

My reading of your response is that it may be way too conservative:

But in general case it could be only dead path where such object is referenced.

Is it your main concern?

First, I am concern that marking synchronization region as has_escaped_object during parsing when we load OSR state could be premature and later we can still eliminate locks if we don't do that. That was my comment about dead path.

Second, marking during OSR load could be not enough. We may get an escaped locked object not only in such case. And not checking all objects in EA will miss it. Which may be not true and I am paranoid.

I think my fix cover all cases.

vnkozlov · 2024-01-16T17:54:22Z

@dean-long, @iwanowww do you have other questions? Can I get reviewed status ;^) ?

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/escapeAnalysis/TestLocksInOSR.java

vnkozlov · 2024-01-17T20:16:49Z

Thank you, @TobiHartmann, for review. I addressed your comments.

iwanowww · 2024-01-18T00:31:42Z

@vnkozlov sorry, I still have a hard time reasoning about the correctness of the proposed fix.

It's not clear to me what "synchronized block does not have any associated escaped objects" means in practice and how it relates to the original problem. When does the situation with a single BoxLock shared between multiple AbstractLocks bug distinct obj_node() inputs occur? Does it only happen for matched Lock/Unlock node pairs?

eme64

I'll need to study EA from the ground up to really review this.

eme64 · 2024-01-18T16:36:42Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/escape.cpp

+/*
+ * The lock/unlock is unnecessary if we are locking a non-escaped object,
+ * unless synchronized block (defined by BoxLock node) has other escaped objects
+ * (for example, locked object come from Interpreter in OSR compilation).
+ *
+ * Return true if lock/unlock can be eliminated.
+ */


Suggested change

/*

* The lock/unlock is unnecessary if we are locking a non-escaped object,

* unless synchronized block (defined by BoxLock node) has other escaped objects

* (for example, locked object come from Interpreter in OSR compilation).

*

* Return true if lock/unlock can be eliminated.

*/

// The lock/unlock is unnecessary if we are locking a non-escaped object,

// unless synchronized block (defined by BoxLock node) has other escaped objects

// (for example, locked object come from Interpreter in OSR compilation).

//

// Return true if lock/unlock can be eliminated.

This would be the first use in this file of multi-line comment 🤷‍♂️

eme64

Ok, so I did some rudimentary study of EA. And now this PR makes much more sense ;)

Let me summarize my understanding of the issue:
An object gets allocated in interpreter, and we lock on it in the interpreter.
OSR is triggered, the object is passed in as OSR parameter, we hold the lock.
The OSR control flow now looks like this:

StartOSR:
  LoadP -> load the object created in interpreter
  we have not_global_escape(LoadP) == false
  so this is correctly marked as escaping
  now the osr path injects into the middle of the loop

Loop:
  Phi -> merge interpreter obj and that from this compiled code
  we have not_global_escape(Phi) == false
  ...
  Unlock(Phi)
  ...
  check some condition, maybe return
  ...
  obj = CheckCastPP( Allocate(i.e. new Object()) )
  we have not_global_escape(obj) == true
  this is correct, the object will never escape
  Lock(obj)
  ...
  goto Loop

So if I understand this correctly, the marking in/with the ConnectionGrap is correct:

The object passed in through OSR is marked as escaping.
The object created locally is marked as non-escaping.
The loop-phi that merges the two must therefore also be possibly escaping.

The question is then with the condition of Lock removal:
Can we remove the lock, just because its object is marked as non-escaping?
At first glance: obviously, because nobody else could ever have the object, and so nobody can ever lock/unlock it.

In the example, if we look at the Unlock node, we cannot remove it (at least at first):
its object is possibly escaping, because the Phi is not marked non-escaping.
But we can remove the Lock, since its object is non-escaping.
This is where the trouble starts.

I think it is exactly for this reason, that @vnkozlov thinks one cannot just look at the object of the individual Lock/Unlock node, but one has to look at all Lock/Unlock nodes of a BoxLock, and see if all objects are non-escaping.

@vnkozlov please correct me if I got something wrong ;)

I was trying to see what the meaning of the BoxLockNode is, but I did not find any useful documentation. Can you help me out here? Your patch assumes that all "relevant" Lock/Unlock nodes share the same BoxLockNode. Why is that the case?

eme64 · 2024-01-19T13:38:30Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/callnode.cpp

@@ -2001,7 +2001,7 @@ Node *LockNode::Ideal(PhaseGVN *phase, bool can_reshape) {
    // If we are locking an non-escaped object, the lock/unlock is unnecessary
    //
    ConnectionGraph *cgr = phase->C->congraph();
-    if (cgr != nullptr && cgr->not_global_escape(obj_node())) {
+    if (cgr != nullptr && cgr->can_eliminate_lock(this)) {


I guess if you make this change, then you probably would also want to rename NonEscObj and set_non_esc_obj and is_non_esc_obj, right? Now it is not just about being non-escaped, but the more complex semantics of can_eliminate_lock.

vnkozlov · 2024-01-19T23:01:11Z

Thank you, @eme64 for review and for "diving" into the issue to understand it. Your conclusion is correct.

First, when not-escaped object merged by Phi node with escaped one we only mark such object "Not Scalar Replaceable" NSR:

JavaObject(5) NoEscape(NoEscape) NSR [ [ 155 160 215 213 101 99 ]]   143  Allocate

We can not eliminate it but we can still do some optimizations for it, like CMP nodes optimization and Locks elimination.
Unfortunately in this case it share Unlock node with escaped object so we can't eliminate Unlock and related Lock.
It is bug that we eliminated Unlock based only on knowledge that Lock can be eliminated.

There is "balanced monitors" rule: on any code path number of executed Locks and Unlocks for locked object should match. Even when an object is "local" and no other threads can see it as in this case. You either eliminate all, keep all or prove that you can eliminate some but keep them balance (as we do for Lock Coarsening).
This bug breaks this rule.

vnkozlov · 2024-01-19T23:58:10Z

As I commented in bug reported, technically we can split Unlock node through Phi to separate them and try to eliminate ones related not-escaped new object. But it will not help in this case.

There are 2 modes in C2 how we handle locks/unlocks.

Before JDK-7125896 we used BoxLockNode only to indicate stack slot where we store object's header (MarkWord) for heavy monitors HotSpot/Synchronization.

In that mode the same BoxLockNode can be used by not interfering synchronization regions even for different objects:

  synchronize(obj1) {}
  synchronize(obj2) {}

The only matter stack slot it points locknode.cpp#L51

EA supports this mode and C2 looks on each locks/unlocks which reference only one object and creates new separate BoxLockNode (synchronization region) for them when it eliminates locks macro.cpp#L1974

JDK-7125896 and sequential fixes introduced new mode to simplify handling locks and to allow "easy" implement elimination of some nested locks which lock the same object. This is default mode (EliminateNestedLocks == true) since JDK 8 (and 7u4). In this mode we don't merge BoxLockNode nodes - each synchronization region will have separate BoxLockNode - one per locked object. This assumes that we will see only on object if we trace all Lock/Unlock nodes which reference one BoxLockNode.

An other assumption is that if we have merge point during parsing (for example, diamond shape code inside synchronized region) we can use BoxLockNode for the same stack slot from already processed path: parse1.cpp#L1800. It was additional fix JDK-7128355 after nested locks elimination implementation.

Based on that (all Lock/Unlock nodes which reference one BoxLockNode locks only one and the same object) in this mode it was assumed that we can eliminate all locks and unlocks if we find at least one which we can eliminate in one synchronized region (one BoxLockNode) macro.cpp#L1946

OSR compilation in this bug case breaks these assumptions. During parsing we merged synchronized region (one BoxLockNode) with different locked object (from Interpreter). As result the assumption that we can eliminate all locks/unlocks for one region based only on one lock is incorrect.

It may be possible do something when we parse merge point but I think it is hard. What if this merge point is not at the start but somewhere later?

For me it was much easier to catch such case early during escape analysis where information about all objects is available.

dean-long · 2024-01-20T01:22:16Z

I was thinking about splitting unlock(obj) through Phi node to keep separate unlock for object coming from Interpreter

It may be possible do something when we parse merge point but I think it is hard. What if this merge point is not at the start but somewhere later?

I think it is true that OSR nmethods only have the OSR entry point. There is no normal entry point. So if we did a special kind of loop unrolling, so that the OSR entry came first, we would end up with something like this, assuming OSR entry happens on the first iteration with i == 0. The merge point/phi goes away completely, I believe.
i = 0;
// Trigger OSR compilation
[ OSR entry ]
[...]
[montorexit on iterpreter object, with no preceding monitorenter!]
i = 1;
Object o = new Object(); // Never escapes
synchronized (o) { // This monitorenter can be eliminated
for (int j = 0; j < 100_000; ++j) {

In general we don't know which iteration will trigger OSR. So unrolled code would look like:
int i = OSR_start;
[...]
for (i = OSR_start + 1; i < 2; ++i) {

I wouldn't be surprised if generating the Unlock without the Lock breaks some assumptions elsewhere.
I'm not suggesting something like this for this PR -- just thinking it seems possible conceptually.

vnkozlov · 2024-01-20T01:54:25Z

I agree, this is very interesting suggestion (for separate RFE) which may allow us to avoid inverted (and irreducible) loops and not just current locking issue.

vnkozlov · 2024-01-26T22:32:28Z

I am still working on it. I have to address Emanuel's suggestions (renaming is not trivial). And also take into account executions when EliminateNestedLocks flag switched off. As I explained, several synchronized region and different objects can be referenced by one BoxLockNode in such case.

bridgekeeper · 2024-02-23T23:58:27Z

@vnkozlov This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

vnkozlov · 2024-02-28T21:52:57Z

New simple fix implementation based on JDK-8324969 changes:

I marked locking region (BoxLock node) coming from OSR entry as Unbalanced and propagate the state when merging regions (for case when EliminateNestedLocks is on, JDK-8324969 changes do that for the flag off case)
moved test to compiler/locks
tested tier1-7, xcomp, stress

vnkozlov · 2024-02-28T21:53:52Z

@eme64, @iwanowww and @dean-long please look.

dean-long

I like this simpler version.

openjdk · 2024-02-28T22:49:48Z

@vnkozlov This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation

Reviewed-by: epeter, dlong, vlivanov

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 13 new commits pushed to the master branch:

b8fc418: 8326525: com/sun/tools/attach/BasicTests.java does not verify AgentLoadException case
d9aa1de: 8318605: Enable parallelism in vmTestbase/nsk/stress/stack tests
bbfda65: 8326897: (fs) The utility TestUtil.supportsLinks is wrongly used to check for hard link support
db0e2b8: 8326944: (ch) Minor typo in the ScatteringByteChannel.read(ByteBuffer[] dsts,int offset,int length) javadoc
8f6edd8: 8326975: Parallel: Remove redundant PSOldGen::is_allocated
4302900: 8319673: Few security tests ignore VM flags
e772e78: 8326948: Force English locale for timeout formatting
d9ef16d: 8326140: src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/libjavaaccessbridge/AccessBridgeJavaEntryPoints.cpp ReleaseStringChars might be missing in early returns
998d0ba: 8324799: Use correct extension for C++ test headers
0735c8a: 8318302: ThreadCountLimit.java failed with "Native memory allocation (mprotect) failed to protect 16384 bytes for memory to guard stack pages"
... and 3 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/b938a5c9edd53821a52b43a8e342b76adb341a3f...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

iwanowww

Looks good.

eme64

Looks good!

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/locks/TestLocksInOSR.java

eme64 · 2024-02-29T08:47:49Z

@vnkozlov title improvement suggestion:
8322743: C2: prevent elimination OSR locking region
-> 8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation

vnkozlov · 2024-02-29T16:31:05Z

@vnkozlov title improvement suggestion: 8322743: C2: prevent elimination OSR locking region -> 8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation

Done

vnkozlov · 2024-02-29T19:07:06Z

I added @run main TestLocksInOSR to regression test and tested hs-tier1-3,xcomp,stress which passed.

vnkozlov · 2024-02-29T19:14:55Z

Thank you Dean, Vladimir and Emanuel for reviews

vnkozlov · 2024-02-29T20:20:09Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2024-02-29T20:20:48Z

Going to push as commit 742c776.
Since your change was applied there have been 14 commits pushed to the master branch:

d29cefb: 8326838: JFR: Native mirror events
b8fc418: 8326525: com/sun/tools/attach/BasicTests.java does not verify AgentLoadException case
d9aa1de: 8318605: Enable parallelism in vmTestbase/nsk/stress/stack tests
bbfda65: 8326897: (fs) The utility TestUtil.supportsLinks is wrongly used to check for hard link support
db0e2b8: 8326944: (ch) Minor typo in the ScatteringByteChannel.read(ByteBuffer[] dsts,int offset,int length) javadoc
8f6edd8: 8326975: Parallel: Remove redundant PSOldGen::is_allocated
4302900: 8319673: Few security tests ignore VM flags
e772e78: 8326948: Force English locale for timeout formatting
d9ef16d: 8326140: src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/libjavaaccessbridge/AccessBridgeJavaEntryPoints.cpp ReleaseStringChars might be missing in early returns
998d0ba: 8324799: Use correct extension for C++ test headers
... and 4 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/b938a5c9edd53821a52b43a8e342b76adb341a3f...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2024-02-29T20:20:54Z

@vnkozlov Pushed as commit 742c776.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

8322743: assert(held_monitor_count() == jni_monitor_count()) failed

89ba1f7

openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 9, 2024

Fix trailing and other spaces.

f6031e2

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 9, 2024

TobiHartmann reviewed Jan 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/escapeAnalysis/TestLocksInOSR.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/escapeAnalysis/TestLocksInOSR.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Address review comments

e5248c2

eme64 suggested changes Jan 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

eme64 suggested changes Jan 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

vnkozlov added 2 commits February 13, 2024 14:19

Backout original implementation

e754d2f

Merge branch 'master' into 8322743

5af0021

vnkozlov mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2024

8324969: C2: prevent elimination of unbalanced coarsened locking regions #17697

Closed

3 tasks

vnkozlov added 2 commits February 28, 2024 08:12

Merge branch 'master' into 8322743

82d183a

Update implementation

d4d55e0

vnkozlov requested a review from eme64 February 28, 2024 21:53

vnkozlov changed the title ~~8322743: assert(held_monitor_count() == jni_monitor_count()) failed~~ 8322743: C2: prevent elimination OSR locking region Feb 28, 2024

dean-long approved these changes Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Feb 28, 2024

iwanowww approved these changes Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

eme64 approved these changes Feb 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/locks/TestLocksInOSR.java Show resolved Hide resolved

vnkozlov changed the title ~~8322743: C2: prevent elimination OSR locking region~~ 8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation Feb 29, 2024

Added general run to regression test

2c675f8

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Feb 29, 2024

openjdk bot closed this Feb 29, 2024

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Feb 29, 2024

vnkozlov deleted the 8322743 branch February 29, 2024 20:29

8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation #17331

8322743: C2: prevent lock region elimination in OSR compilation #17331

Conversation

vnkozlov commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Webrev

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 9, 2024

openjdk bot commented Jan 9, 2024

mlbridge bot commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Webrevs

dean-long commented Jan 10, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 10, 2024

dean-long commented Jan 10, 2024

dean-long commented Jan 10, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 10, 2024

iwanowww commented Jan 11, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 11, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 16, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 17, 2024

iwanowww commented Jan 18, 2024 • edited Loading

eme64 left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eme64 Jan 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vnkozlov Jan 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eme64 left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eme64 Jan 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vnkozlov Jan 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vnkozlov commented Jan 19, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 19, 2024

dean-long commented Jan 20, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 20, 2024 • edited Loading

vnkozlov commented Jan 26, 2024

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 23, 2024

vnkozlov commented Feb 28, 2024

vnkozlov commented Feb 28, 2024

dean-long left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading

iwanowww left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eme64 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eme64 commented Feb 29, 2024

vnkozlov commented Feb 29, 2024

vnkozlov commented Feb 29, 2024

vnkozlov commented Feb 29, 2024

vnkozlov commented Feb 29, 2024

openjdk bot commented Feb 29, 2024

openjdk bot commented Feb 29, 2024

vnkozlov commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

iwanowww commented Jan 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

eme64 left a comment •

edited

Loading

eme64 left a comment •

edited

Loading

vnkozlov commented Jan 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading