8371667: Shenandoah: Re-design alloc request type enum for better efficiency and cleaner code #28247

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-12T01:29:53Z

Current alloc request type enum:

  enum Type {
    _alloc_shared, // Allocate common, outside of TLAB
    _alloc_shared_gc, // Allocate common, outside of GCLAB/PLAB
    _alloc_cds, // Allocate for CDS
    _alloc_tlab, // Allocate TLAB
    _alloc_gclab, // Allocate GCLAB
    _alloc_plab, // Allocate PLAB
    _ALLOC_LIMIT
  };

With current design, we have to use switch statement in multiple places resulting in unnecessary branches, for instance the function is_mutator_alloc:

  inline bool is_mutator_alloc() const {
    switch (_alloc_type) {
      case _alloc_tlab:
      case _alloc_shared:
      case _alloc_cds:
        return true;
      case _alloc_gclab:
      case _alloc_plab:
      case _alloc_shared_gc:
        return false;
      default:
        ShouldNotReachHere();
        return false;
    }
  }

In PR, I have re-designed the enum to make the function like is_mutator_alloc much simpler by making the values of the enum follow two simple rules:

Smaller value for mutator alloc, larger value for gc alloc; GC alloc types are always greater than any of mutator alloc types.
Odd for lab, even number for non-lab

Three functions have been simplified to one-line impl w/o branches in machine code:

  inline bool is_mutator_alloc() const {
    return _alloc_type <= _alloc_shared;
  }

  inline bool is_gc_alloc() const {
    return _alloc_type >= _alloc_shared_gc;
  }

  inline bool is_lab_alloc() const {
    return (_alloc_type & 1) == 1;
  }

I didn't check compiled assemble code of hotspot, in instead, I wrote similar/equivalent code and compile with gcc for comparison using godbolt.org:

bool is_lab_alloc(int alloc_type) {
    return (alloc_type & 1) == 1;
}

bool is_lab_alloc_switch(int alloc_type) {
    switch (alloc_type) {
        case 0:
        case 2: 
        case 4:
          return false;
        case 1:
        case 3:
        case 5:
          return true;
        default:
          throw "Should not reach here";

    }
}

x86_64 assembly code (https://godbolt.org/z/h7xfz8PaT):

is_lab_alloc(int):
        push    rbp
        mov     rbp, rsp
        mov     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], edi
        mov     eax, DWORD PTR [rbp-4]
        and     eax, 1
        and     eax, 1
        pop     rbp
        ret
.LC0:
        .string "Should not reach here"
is_lab_alloc_switch(int):
        push    rbp
        mov     rbp, rsp
        sub     rsp, 16
        mov     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], edi
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 5
        je      .L4
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 5
        jg      .L5
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 4
        je      .L6
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 4
        jg      .L5
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 3
        je      .L4
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 3
        jg      .L5
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 2
        je      .L6
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 2
        jg      .L5
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 0
        je      .L6
        cmp     DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 1
        je      .L4
        jmp     .L5
.L6:
        mov     eax, 0
        jmp     .L7
.L4:
        mov     eax, 1
        jmp     .L7
.L5:
        mov     edi, 8
        call    __cxa_allocate_exception
        mov     QWORD PTR [rax], OFFSET FLAT:.LC0
        mov     edx, 0
        mov     esi, OFFSET FLAT:typeinfo for char const*
        mov     rdi, rax
        call    __cxa_throw
.L7:
        leave
        ret

Test:

TEST=hotspot_gc_shenandoah
Tier 1

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-8371667: Shenandoah: Re-design alloc request type enum for better efficiency and cleaner code (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

Aleksey Shipilev (@shipilev - Reviewer)
Kelvin Nilsen (@kdnilsen - Committer) Review applies to 674753bb

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28247/head:pull/28247
$ git checkout pull/28247

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/28247
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28247/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 28247

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 28247

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28247.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

…iciency and cleaner code

bridgekeeper · 2025-11-12T01:31:07Z

👋 Welcome back xpeng! 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 · 2025-11-12T01:31:25Z

@pengxiaolong 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:

8371667: Shenandoah: Re-design alloc request type enum for better efficiency and cleaner code

Reviewed-by: shade, kdnilsen

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 184 new commits pushed to the master branch:

99be0e7: 8371581: C2: PhaseCCP should reach fixpoint by revisiting deeply-Value-d nodes
43af7b5: 8371309: Diagnostic.getEndPosition can throw an NPE with typical broken code
3f47e57: 8372240: Convert FreeListAllocator to use Atomic
... and 181 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/8531fa146be1da5e96c0f23091882a27c67d7893...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.

openjdk · 2025-11-12T01:32:08Z

@pengxiaolong The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

hotspot-gc
shenandoah

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

mlbridge · 2025-11-12T02:06:09Z

Webrevs

shipilev

Honestly, I don't believe switching from explicit switch cases to bit manipulation is that much readable here. If you want to pursue this, then maybe do the proper bitmask manipulation, something like:

 // bit 0: mutator (0) or GC (1) alloc 
 // bit 1: LAB (0) or shared (1) alloc 
 // bit 2: if LAB, then GCLAB (0) or PLAB (1)
 // bit 3: if mutator, then normal (0) or CDS (1)
 typedef int AllocType;

 constexpr int bit_gc_alloc = 1 << 1;
 constexpr int bit_lab_alloc = 1 << 2;
 constexpr int bit_plab_alloc = 1 << 3;
 constexpr int bit_cds_alloc = 1 << 4;
 ...
 const bool is_lab_alloc(AllocType type) {
    return (type & bit_lab_alloc) != 0;
 }
 
 constexpr AllocType _alloc_tlab = bit_lab_alloc;
 constexpr AllocType _alloc_plab = bit_gc_alloc | bit_lab_alloc | bit_plab_alloc;
 ...

Remains to be seen what is the most sensible encoding scheme here.

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-12T16:04:45Z

Honestly, I don't believe switching from explicit switch cases to bit manipulation is that much readable here. If you want to pursue this, then maybe do the proper bitmask manipulation, something like:
 // bit 0: mutator (0) or GC (1) alloc 
 // bit 1: LAB (0) or shared (1) alloc 
 // bit 2: if LAB, then GCLAB (0) or PLAB (1)
 // bit 3: if mutator, then normal (0) or CDS (1)
 typedef int AllocType;

 constexpr int bit_gc_alloc = 1 << 1;
 constexpr int bit_lab_alloc = 1 << 2;
 constexpr int bit_plab_alloc = 1 << 3;
 constexpr int bit_cds_alloc = 1 << 4;
 ...
 const bool is_lab_alloc(AllocType type) {
    return (type & bit_lab_alloc) != 0;
 }
 
 constexpr AllocType _alloc_tlab = bit_lab_alloc;
 constexpr AllocType _alloc_plab = bit_gc_alloc | bit_lab_alloc | bit_plab_alloc;
 ...
Remains to be seen what is the most sensible encoding scheme here.

Thanks you for the suggestion.

I didn't think about changing the enum to constexpr int for alloc request type, just wanted to re-shuffle the values of current enum, so I only used bit manipulation when test if it lab allocation. I'll update the PR and use proper bitmask manipulation as you suggested.

In terms of readability, explicit switch cases is definitely more readable, but machine code size will be also larger with more branches, so in theory it is less efficient.

shipilev

Now that we are doing this... I do wonder if we want to fold _is_promotion and _affiliation into the same bitset?

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahAllocRequest.hpp

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-12T17:25:52Z

Now that we are doing this... I do wonder if we want to fold _is_promotion and _affiliation into the same bitset?

I'll take a look today and see if folding _is_promotion and _affiliation into the same bitset provides benefits we want.

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-13T00:23:01Z

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahFreeSet.cpp

  if (ShenandoahHeapRegion::requires_humongous(req.size())) {
    switch (req.type()) {
      case ShenandoahAllocRequest::_alloc_shared:
-      case ShenandoahAllocRequest::_alloc_shared_gc:


humongous objects never move, not possible to be _alloc_shared_gc here?

Yes, I am not sure why we have the case for _alloc_shared_gc here. But I would leave it for extra safety in this "optimization/cleanup" change. We can yank this case later.

Humongous objects do move under full gc, and may eventually move under concurrent GC with some refactoring.

I have added the line case ShenandoahAllocRequest::_alloc_shared_gc: back.
For full gc, we may move humongous objects in compaction, not by evacuation, so it won't call into ShenandoahFreeSet::allocate method, right?

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-13T00:26:32Z

Now that we are doing this... I do wonder if we want to fold _is_promotion and _affiliation into the same bitset?

I'll take a look today and see if folding _is_promotion and _affiliation into the same bitset provides benefits we want.

I have made the change to fold _is_promotion and _affiliation into the same bitset of _alloc, but I am not 100% sure about whether we should do it or not.

shipilev

A bit confusing still. How about this:

[x|xx|xxx|xx]
           ^---- Requester:   
                     00 -- mutator
                     10 -- mutator (CDS)
                     01 -- GC
        ^------- Purpose:
                     00 -- shared
                     01 -- TLAB/GCLAB
                     11 -- PLAB
     ^---------- Affiliation: 
                     00 -- YOUNG
                     01 -- OLD
                     11 -- OLD, promotion

Then:

  static constexpr int bit_gc_alloc         = 1 << 0;
  static constexpr int bit_cds_alloc        = 1 << 1;
  static constexpr int bit_lab_alloc        = 1 << 2;
  static constexpr int bit_plab_alloc       = 1 << 3;
  static constexpr int bit_old_alloc        = 1 << 4;
  static constexpr int bit_promotion_alloc  = 1 << 5;

  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared              = 0;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_tlab                = bit_lab_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_cds                 = bit_cds_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared_gc           = bit_gc_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared_gc_old       = bit_gc_alloc | bit_old_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared_gc_promotion = bit_gc_alloc | bit_old_alloc | bit_promotion_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_gclab               = bit_gc_alloc | bit_lab_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_plab                = bit_gc_alloc | bit_plab_alloc | bit_old_alloc;

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-17T07:07:43Z

A bit confusing still. How about this:

[x|xx|xxx|xx]
           ^---- Requester:   
                     00 -- mutator
                     10 -- mutator (CDS)
                     01 -- GC
        ^------- Purpose:
                     00 -- shared
                     01 -- TLAB/GCLAB
                     11 -- PLAB
     ^---------- Affiliation: 
                     00 -- YOUNG
                     01 -- OLD
                     11 -- OLD, promotion

Then:

  static constexpr int bit_gc_alloc         = 1 << 0;
  static constexpr int bit_cds_alloc        = 1 << 1;
  static constexpr int bit_lab_alloc        = 1 << 2;
  static constexpr int bit_plab_alloc       = 1 << 3;
  static constexpr int bit_old_alloc        = 1 << 4;
  static constexpr int bit_promotion_alloc  = 1 << 5;

  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared              = 0;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_tlab                = bit_lab_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_cds                 = bit_cds_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared_gc           = bit_gc_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared_gc_old       = bit_gc_alloc | bit_old_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_shared_gc_promotion = bit_gc_alloc | bit_old_alloc | bit_promotion_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_gclab               = bit_gc_alloc | bit_lab_alloc;
  static constexpr Type _alloc_plab                = bit_gc_alloc | bit_plab_alloc | bit_old_alloc;

Thanks Aleksey! This is good, I have applied the change, and fixed the wrong value for _alloc_plab, it should be bit_gc_alloc | bit_lab_alloc | bit_plab_alloc | bit_old_alloc.

shipilev

Thanks, looks reasonable. A few more nits.

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahAllocRequest.hpp

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahFreeSet.cpp

shipilev · 2025-11-17T09:52:13Z

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahFreeSet.cpp

  if (ShenandoahHeapRegion::requires_humongous(req.size())) {
    switch (req.type()) {
      case ShenandoahAllocRequest::_alloc_shared:
-      case ShenandoahAllocRequest::_alloc_shared_gc:


Yes, I am not sure why we have the case for _alloc_shared_gc here. But I would leave it for extra safety in this "optimization/cleanup" change. We can yank this case later.

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahFreeSet.cpp

kdnilsen · 2025-11-17T17:47:53Z

Regarding the original code, was that release-build code, with optimization? That looks more like slowdebug code. I would have expected a computed goto rather than cascaded if-then-elses.

With computed-goto and with range checks, I suspect there may still be issues with branch-prediction efficiency in hardware. Do we see any measurable impact on performance?

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-17T18:22:29Z

Regarding the original code, was that release-build code, with optimization? That looks more like slowdebug code. I would have expected a computed goto rather than cascaded if-then-elses.

With computed-goto and with range checks, I suspect there may still be issues with branch-prediction efficiency in hardware. Do we see any measurable impact on performance?

It was release-build code, I used https://godbolt.org to generated the assembly code for comparison, the one in description is less optimization, here is the one with -O3 flag: https://godbolt.org/z/3317zYqYh

I am not really expecting much measurable impact on performance, but I did push the change to gitfram CI, here is the result from last run, I say kind of neutral:

Genshen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+2.76% mnemonics/mnemonics_duration p=0.00019 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:      4.325s  (+/- 87.20ms)         64
  Test:         4.445s  (+/- 80.49ms)         64

-2.68% fj-kmeans/fj-kmeans_duration p=0.00000 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:      2.450s  (+/- 27.01ms)        120
  Test:         2.384s  (+/- 60.06ms)        120

-1.55% finagle-chirper/finagle-chirper_duration p=0.00000 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:      3.026s  (+/-132.97ms)        360
  Test:         2.979s  (+/-139.38ms)        360

-1.14% philosophers/philosophers_duration p=0.00286 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:      2.690s  (+/-163.97ms)        120
  Test:         2.659s  (+/-178.57ms)        120


Shenandoah
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1.11% dotty/dotty_duration p=0.00000 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:      1.141s  (+/-103.32ms)        200
  Test:         1.153s  (+/-101.47ms)        200

-4.11% par-mnemonics/par-mnemonics_duration p=0.00009 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:      3.349s  (+/- 31.22ms)         64
  Test:         3.212s  (+/- 90.24ms)         64

-1.53% finagle-chirper/finagle-chirper_duration p=0.00000 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:      2.725s  (+/-121.14ms)        360
  Test:         2.683s  (+/-121.11ms)        360

-1.12% scrabble/scrabble_duration p=0.00000 (Wilcoxon)
  Control:    160.283ms (+/-  2.72ms)        200
  Test:       158.495ms (+/-  6.73ms)        200

kdnilsen

Thanks for this cleanup and these improvements. Just two minor suggestions.

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahAllocRequest.hpp

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahFreeSet.cpp

shipilev

Looks fine, assuming it passes tests.

kdnilsen

Thanks.

shipilev · 2025-11-18T15:47:30Z

Note the test failures in GHA.

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-21T17:34:11Z

Note the test failures in GHA.

Thanks, I looked into the GHA test, it is strange that I only updated some methods and added the missing inline keywords, it has to be related to one of the methods, more likely the affiliation_name(), I'll figure it out.

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-21T21:15:14Z

@shipilev @kdnilsen Now it works, the inline added to affiliation_name() caused some GHA failure on Windows.

shipilev

Still good.

pengxiaolong · 2025-11-24T22:08:21Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2025-11-24T22:10:10Z

Going to push as commit e00dec5.
Since your change was applied there have been 197 commits pushed to the master branch:

507a6d3: 8368001: java/text/Format/NumberFormat/NumberRoundTrip.java timed out
8bafc2f: 8371789: C2: More explicit dump results for TypePtr
2177260: 8371458: [REDO] Remove exception handler stub code in C2
... and 194 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/8531fa146be1da5e96c0f23091882a27c67d7893...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2025-11-24T22:10:20Z

@pengxiaolong Pushed as commit e00dec5.

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

8371667: Shenandoah: Re-design alloc request type enum for better eff…

97a8243

…iciency and cleaner code

openjdk bot added hotspot-gc hotspot-gc-dev@openjdk.org shenandoah shenandoah-dev@openjdk.org labels Nov 12, 2025

pengxiaolong and others added 2 commits November 11, 2025 17:44

re-shuffle the enum values and add comments

27e254d

Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8371667

2dc0b56

pengxiaolong marked this pull request as ready for review November 12, 2025 02:02

touch-up

eaf5997

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Nov 12, 2025

shipilev reviewed Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

Refactor alloc type with bit masks

e44a301

shipilev reviewed Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahAllocRequest.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahAllocRequest.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Address pr comments

5348c88

pengxiaolong added 4 commits November 12, 2025 14:54

Fold _affiliation and _is_promotion into the bitset of request type

2cf6600

Add asserts

0332514

Remove dead code

e05b45b

Add missing cases in ShenandoahHeapRegion::adjust_alloc_metadata

4b9f130

pengxiaolong commented Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

Fix wrong bit masks(offset by 1)

131f6a6

shipilev reviewed Nov 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

pengxiaolong added 4 commits November 16, 2025 22:14

Update bits encoding scheme and comments

27afba6

touch up

2fa1e44

Comments

f875355

_alloc_plab is also lab alloc

66352ab

shipilev reviewed Nov 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

Address review comments

1c2ab8f

pengxiaolong commented Nov 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahFreeSet.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

pengxiaolong added 2 commits November 17, 2025 08:37

Adding unnecessary back

480f7ab

tidy up

121faa9

kdnilsen reviewed Nov 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahAllocRequest.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahFreeSet.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

Address review comments

674753b

shipilev approved these changes Nov 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 18, 2025

kdnilsen approved these changes Nov 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Revert inline for affiliation_name

93943a0

openjdk bot removed the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 21, 2025

pengxiaolong requested review from kdnilsen and shipilev November 21, 2025 21:15

shipilev approved these changes Nov 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 24, 2025

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 24, 2025

openjdk bot closed this Nov 24, 2025

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 24, 2025

earthling-amzn mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 2025

8372566: Genshen: crash at ShenandoahScanRemembered::process_clusters after JDK-8371667 #28521

Closed

5 tasks

8371667: Shenandoah: Re-design alloc request type enum for better efficiency and cleaner code #28247

8371667: Shenandoah: Re-design alloc request type enum for better efficiency and cleaner code #28247

Uh oh!

Conversation

pengxiaolong commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

shipilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

shipilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong Nov 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shipilev Nov 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kdnilsen Nov 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong Nov 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong commented Nov 13, 2025

Uh oh!

shipilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong commented Nov 17, 2025

Uh oh!

shipilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shipilev Nov 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kdnilsen commented Nov 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong commented Nov 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kdnilsen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shipilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kdnilsen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pengxiaolong commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kdnilsen commented Nov 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

pengxiaolong commented Nov 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading