Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:42:16 -0500 6929067: Stack guard pages should be removed when thread is detached
coleenp [Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:42:16 -0500] rev 5085
6929067: Stack guard pages should be removed when thread is detached Summary: Add code to unmap stack guard area when thread is detached. Reviewed-by: coleenp, kamg
Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:15:12 -0700 6940419: Bump the HS18 build number to 02
trims [Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:15:12 -0700] rev 5084
6940419: Bump the HS18 build number to 02 Summary: Update the HS18 build number to 02 Reviewed-by: jcoomes
Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:10:27 -0700 Merge
trims [Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:10:27 -0700] rev 5083
Merge
Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:14:59 -0400 6935821: G1: threads created during marking do not active their SATB queues
tonyp [Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:14:59 -0400] rev 5082
6935821: G1: threads created during marking do not active their SATB queues Summary: Newly-created threads always had the active field of their SATB queue initialized to false, even if they were created during marking. As a result, updates from threads created during a marking cycle were never enqueued and never processed. The fix includes remaining a method from active() to is_active() for readability and naming consistency. Reviewed-by: ysr, johnc
Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:40:53 -0700 Merge
apetrusenko [Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:40:53 -0700] rev 5081
Merge
Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:31:51 -0700 6935839: excessive marking stack growth during full gcs
jcoomes [Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:31:51 -0700] rev 5080
6935839: excessive marking stack growth during full gcs Summary: process one item at a time from the objarray stack/queue Reviewed-by: apetrusenko, tonyp
Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:48:28 -0700 6921710: G1: assert(new_finger >= _finger && new_finger < _region_limit,"invariant")
apetrusenko [Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:48:28 -0700] rev 5079
6921710: G1: assert(new_finger >= _finger && new_finger < _region_limit,"invariant") Summary: If CM task was aborted while scanning the last object of the specified region and the size of that object is equal to bitmap's granularity then the next offset would be equal or over the region limit which is exactly what the assertion states. Reviewed-by: ysr, tonyp, jmasa
(0) -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -7 +7 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip