New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8271060: Merge G1CollectedHeap::determine_start_concurrent_mark_gc and G1Policy::decide_on_conc_mark_initiation #4867
Conversation
|
Webrevs
|
bool should_start_concurrent_mark_operation = policy()->decide_on_concurrent_start_pause();
The name, decide_on_concurrent_start_pause()
, is not very obvious, IMO; I feel it's because it's trying to do two things: 1. deciding the pause type, 2. returns whether the decided pause type is concurrent_start_gc.
I wonder if sth like the following (decoupling the two tasks) is clearer:
policy()->decide_pause_type();
bool should_start_concurrent_mark_operation = collector_state()->in_concurrent_start_gc();
Ofc, this is very subjective. The PR is fine as it is.
Thanks for your review. I understand your concerns and will think about it. Are there any other opinions in that direction? |
I updated the code according to @albertnetymk 's suggestions: I've been on the fence about this already anyway. |
@tschatzl This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
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 2 new commits pushed to the
Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the
|
Thanks @kimbarrett and @albertnetymk for your reviews. /integrate |
Going to push as commit ea182b5.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
Hi all,
can I have reviews for this merge of two methods that have the same purpose: determine whether this pause should be a concurrent start pause. The reason for this merge is that
G1CollectedHeap::determine_start_concurrent_mark_gc
just calls the other, andG1Policy::decide_on_conc_mark_initiation
does at the beginningwhich all imho fit into
G1Policy::decide_on_conc_mark_initiation
too.It also reduces
G1CollectedHeap
a bit. The main reason for me to put this in the new location is basically that that additional condition inG1CollectedHeap::determine_start_concurrent_mark_gc
makes all conditions for that decision be located closer together.If you think otherwise and this is a bad idea, I will close this PR.
Testing: manual gc/g1 runs
Thanks,
Thomas
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/4867/head:pull/4867
$ git checkout pull/4867
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/4867
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/4867/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 4867
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 4867
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4867.diff