Skip to content
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

Treat single CPU as if -Xgc:noConcurrentMark were set #19919

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 26, 2024

Conversation

zl-wang
Copy link
Contributor

@zl-wang zl-wang commented Jul 25, 2024

There is little expected benefit with concurrentmark if you are running on a single-CPU machine/environment. On the other hand, you could gain some benefits with noConcurrentMark: 1) no interference from background marking thread; 2) shorter write-barrier path-length: for certain workloads, this provides substantial performance benefits (e.g. Spark TPC-DS q72 in particular).

There is little expected benefit with concurrentmark if you are running on a single-CPU machine/environment. On the other hand, you could gain some benefits with noConcurrentMark: 1) no interference from background marking thread; 2) shorter write-barrier path-length: for certain workloads, this provides substantial performance benefits (e.g. Spark TPC-DS q72 in particular).

fix the missing portLib declaration ...

Signed-off-by: Julian <zlwang@ca.ibm.com>
@amicic
Copy link
Contributor

amicic commented Jul 25, 2024

jenkins test sanity win jdk17

1 similar comment
@amicic
Copy link
Contributor

amicic commented Jul 26, 2024

jenkins test sanity win jdk17

@zl-wang
Copy link
Contributor Author

zl-wang commented Jul 26, 2024

looks like there is an infrastructure problem ... pipeline stuck

@amicic
Copy link
Contributor

amicic commented Jul 26, 2024

jenkins test sanity xLinux jdk17

@amicic amicic merged commit 8805cc2 into eclipse-openj9:master Jul 26, 2024
4 of 6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants