On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:33:16 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:33:16 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:20:23 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> I've made a prototype that adds Cleaner.waitForCleaning() and changes
> Bits.reserveMemory() to use it.
>
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/compare/master...kimbarrett:openjdk-jdk:wait-for-cleaning?expand=1
These caught my eye during my rea
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 07:25:41 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> If you are suggesting exposing this as a public API then I don't think we
> should do this,
Not at this time, quite possibly never. As mentioned, I made some things
public for ease of prototyping.
I even commented it as such.
> I actual
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 06:10:39 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> And here is a bug and recently opened PR that would benefit from having
> Cleaner.waitForCleaning.
If you are suggesting exposing this as a public API then I don't think we
should do this, I actually think it's time to consider deprecatin
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:33:16 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:33:16 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:01:51 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert waitForReferenceProcessing removals, see JDK-8305186
>
> There are several changes here that I think are of i
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:54:13 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert waitForReferenceProcessing removals, see JDK-8305186
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Bits.java line
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:56:00 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:28:45 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> @AlanBateman I've not done any work on JDK-8305186. There has also been
>> discussion about making
>> that function non-private or even public (though with concerns about
>> specification difficulty) for use in
>> places like this.
>
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:25:30 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> @kimbarrett Do you have a change coming to allow waitForPendingReferences be
>> used by WB? I assume this will at least add a comment to the method (or
>> whatever it changes to) to make it clear that it's for testing.
>
> @AlanBateman I'v
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:54:16 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> @kimbarrett Do you have a change coming to allow waitForPendingReferences be
>> used by WB? I assume this will at least add a comment to the method (or
>> whatever it changes to) to make it clear that it's for testing.
>
>> @AlanBateman I
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 08:36:34 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Bits.java line 146:
>>
>>> 144: }
>>> 145:
>>> 146: if (canary == null || canary.isDead()) {
>>
>> If we're keeping Reference.waitForPendingReferences, why not continue
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 08:36:34 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Bits.java line 146:
>>
>>> 144: }
>>> 145:
>>> 146: if (canary == null || canary.isDead()) {
>>
>> If we're keeping Reference.waitForPendingReferences, why not continue
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 23:52:40 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert waitForReferenceProcessing removals, see JDK-8305186
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Bits.java line
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 07:30:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> Testing is still clean on my side. I would appreciate if folks can run this
>>> through their CIs.
>>>
>>> I am planning to integrate this on Monday, as long as we discover no new
>>> issues.
>>
>> Did the change to
>> `test/jdk/sun/s
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:56:00 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:56:00 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:56:00 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:42:49 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java line 282:
>>
>>> 280: * This method returns a strong reference to the referent. This
>>> may cause
>>> 281: * the garbage collector to treat it as strongly reachable u
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:28:31 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 14 additional
>> commit
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 07:14:51 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:58:07 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > > Would you mind holding off until Tuesday to give time to get that done?
> >
> >
> > Sure, there is no rush with this PR. I'll wait.
>
> How is it going, @AlanBateman? Any progress on closed tests?
Nearly done - in review now.
--
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 09:08:56 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > Would you mind holding off until Tuesday to give time to get that done?
>
> Sure, there is no rush with this PR. I'll wait.
How is it going, @AlanBateman? Any progress on closed tests?
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 07:30:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Would you mind holding off until Tuesday to give time to get that done?
Sure, there is no rush with this PR. I'll wait.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22165#issuecomment-2615197062
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 22:01:59 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
> Testing is still clean on my side. I would appreciate if folks can run this
> through their CIs.
>
> I am planning to integrate this on Monday, as long as we discover no new
> issues.
I ran it through our CI and we seem to have a few
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 22:01:59 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
> Did the change to
> `test/jdk/sun/security/provider/FileInputStreamPool/FileInputStreamPoolTest.java`
> get lost? I'm pretty sure it was updated, but I no longer see that in the
> changes, and it failed in my automated test run.
It wa
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:30:16 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Testing is still clean on my side. I would appreciate if folks can run this
> through their CIs.
>
> I am planning to integrate this on Monday, as long as we discover no new
> issues.
Did the change to
`test/jdk/sun/security/provide
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:51:38 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:09:00 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - No instantiation for BufferCleaner, javadocs
>> - Remove hasReferencePendingList
>> - Revert test exclusio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:51:38 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:51:38 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:51:38 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 23:44:02 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Alan's review
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/BufferCleaner.java line 31:
>
>> 29: import java.lang.re
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:35:49 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - No instantiation for BufferCleaner, javadocs
>> - Remove hasReferencePendingList
>> - Revert test exclusio
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:50:52 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:50:52 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:23:53 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Remove vestigial reference to waitForReferenceProcessing in tests
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Bits.jav
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:58:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:58:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:31:33 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> No stress test failures so far...
I ran a large matrix of `DirectBufferAllocTest` configs on my 5950X overnight,
and it did not fail once. Several GHA re-runs also came back clean. This gives
me confidence current version works well.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:45:50 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Okay, there is much more significant change now and will require time to
> review very closely.
Sure. I was hoping we could avoid changing the feedback path in allocation
code, but testing disagreed :)
I remember when we built that feedb
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:55:31 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:46:58 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:46:58 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:12:22 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:37:19 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Note that the long standing recommendation has always been to cache/reuse
> direct buffers rather than discard like the reproducer does
The reproducer is likely overly simplistic. The performance problem we are
solving is non-parallelism
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:48:49 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:48:49 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:54:56 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:25:26 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:54:56 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so makes
DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users
with [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704). See the
66 matches
Mail list logo
