-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
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
8315503: G1: Code root scan causes long GC pauses due to imbalanced iteration #476
Conversation
👋 Welcome back goetz! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@GoeLin 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:
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 36 new commits pushed to the
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 |
This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit. |
@GoeLin Please use |
/reviewers 2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I looked at this change shortly after the initial integration into mainline, and thought it is quite a bit risky. I can look again, now with the history of related bugs. But I have to mention right now that it might still be risky. |
That's what I thought, too, but it also seems to be quite an issue with 21. |
@shipilev No doubt about that. For context: It's part of a larger change ported to Oracle JDK 21.0.4 to fix a class unloading perf regression. See https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8326092 and linked issues. |
My fear when looking at the patch sequence was that Oracle probably did not test Shenandoah very thoroughly. I also did not particularly like the CLDG changes. And the patches have not had a lot of time to cook in mainline. |
/issue 8317440 |
@GoeLin |
/issue 8318720 |
@GoeLin |
I don't think this change is a risk for Shenandoah, The shared changes are minimal. |
Ok, so now I got some risk assessments. But could I also please get reviews? I.e., is the backport as correct wrt 21 as it is in 22? I could as well ask someone else for a second review? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All right, this is not very scary, just the normal amount of scary.
|
Actually, let's ask @tschatzl directly if he knows about any other dependencies that might break this patch in JDK 21, or some other caveats. |
Hi @shipilev, I would assume Thomas checked this when he backported it, so that we see all follow ups anyways! |
/integrate |
All known to me follow-ups were backported. All of them are referenced in the main backport JDK-8326092 |
Going to push as commit e63addb.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
Excellent, this is good to now. I see some related things that are only in |
I backport this for parity with 21.0.4-oracle.
I had to resolve 3 files:
src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/heapRegion.cpp
Hunk #1 had to be resolved. "8140326: G1: Consider putting regions where evacuation failed into next collection set" is not in 21.
It adds the "keep_tracked" argument.
src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/heapRegionRemSet.cpp
Resolved hunk #2 because of "8140326: G1: Consider putting regions where evacuation failed into next collection set".
Resolved hunk #4 because "8313202: MutexLocker should disallow null Mutexes" is not in 21
(other Mutex class).
src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/heapRegionRemSet.cpp
Resulved hunk #2, dual to hunk #2 in .cpp file.
Resolved hunks are in a commit of their own.
I include the two direct follow ups
8317440: Lock rank checking fails when code root set is modified with the Servicelock held after JDK-8315503
8318720: G1: Memory leak in G1CodeRootSet after JDK-8315503
Both apply clean on top.
I'll backport the third follow-up
8323685: PrintSystemDictionaryAtExit has mutex rank assert
as dependend backport on top of these. It also applies clean,
but I think it is too large to merge it in here. See #477
Progress
Issues
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/476/head:pull/476
$ git checkout pull/476
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/476
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/476/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 476
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 476
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev/pull/476.diff
Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment