JDK-8233280 : Remove GCLockerInvokesConcurrent
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Component: hotspot
  • Sub-Component: gc
  • Affected Version: 14
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Submitted: 2019-10-31
  • Updated: 2019-11-21
  • Resolved: 2019-11-15
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
JDK 14
14 b24Fixed
Related Reports
CSR :  
JDK-8233877 - Remove GCLockerInvokesConcurrent
Relates :  
JDK-8192647 - GClocker induced GCs can starve threads requiring memory leading to OOME
Relates :  
JDK-8232365 - Implementation for JEP 363: Remove the Concurrent Mark Sweep (CMS) Garbage Collector
Relates :  
JDK-8229049 - JEP 363: Remove the Concurrent Mark Sweep (CMS) Garbage Collector
Relates :  
JDK-8233279 - G1: GCLocker GC with +GCLockerInvokesConcurrent spins while cycle in progress
Relates :  
JDK-6919638 - CMS: ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent misinteracts with gc locker
Description
The product option GCLockerInvokesConcurrent was introduced by JDK-6919638 as part of fixing a bad interaction between GCLocker GCs and +ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent for CMS.  (A GCLocker GC would wait for the concurrent collection to complete, which was not desirable.)

It was added to retain support for requesting that GCLocker GCs would (attempt to) trigger a concurrent collection cycle, but separate it from +ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent.  Even at the time it was noted that this might be a suboptimial policy.

This option was only used by G1 and CMS.  CMS has been removed (JDK-8232365). G1 had a serious bug until very recently (JDK-8233279, 2019-11-13), and even with that fixed the feature remains suboptimal.  Better to just remove it.
Comments
URL: https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/a129f10e1b9a User: kbarrett Date: 2019-11-15 22:13:59 +0000
15-11-2019
I didn't find any tests of this option, nor any interesting mentions of it in a web search.
31-10-2019