-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
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
8324969: C2: prevent elimination of unbalanced coarsened locking regions #17697
Closed
+271
−18
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f0717d5
8324969: assert(false) failed: Non-balanced monitor enter/exit!
vnkozlov 5d60ac8
Merge branch 'master' into 8324969
vnkozlov 7f7beee
New implementation
vnkozlov c42696c
Renaming
vnkozlov 7dd6e6a
More comments. Adress review.
vnkozlov 7d94fc7
Additional changes
vnkozlov e566279
Add verivication for unbalanced BoxLock marking
vnkozlov e9f59e3
Added asserts for BoxLock states change
vnkozlov 088cb25
added const to mark_unbalanced_boxes()
vnkozlov 1607411
Merge branch 'master' into 8324969
vnkozlov File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Could you even move this a scope out, i.e. a line down, so this check is even run with
alock->is_coarsened() == false
?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.
Right. It will verify that we did not miss
is_unbalanced()
check when do EA or nested elimination to avoid them.I will also move the assert at line 4984 under
(box != this_box)
to avoid duplication of check whenbox
is the same.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.
Moving assert down does not work because Nested lock elimination and EA can overwrite Coarsened status for BoxLock before we run
mark_unbalanced_boxes()
. Such BoxLock will not be marked as Unbalanced and assert will fail.I would like to keep current assert in place but add an other assert when we change status of BoxLock. I am working on it.
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.
Right, sounds good :)