8272364: Parallel GC adaptive size policy may shrink the heap below MinHeapSize

[zhengyu123]

The backport is not clean.

The conflict is in the new test, which uses new API introduced by JDK-8321812 in 23. The issue is resolved by fall back to use old API in 22.

This risk of the backport is low and shrinking heap below minimum heap size is an unpleasant surpprise.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• JDK-8272364 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8272364: Parallel GC adaptive size policy may shrink the heap below MinHeapSize (Bug - P4)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk22u.git pull/217/head:pull/217
$ git checkout pull/217

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/217
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk22u.git pull/217/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 217

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 217

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk22u/pull/217.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back zgu! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (43626237)

[TheRealMDoerr]

This change causes test errors JDK-8331675. Shouldn't they get addressed first?

[zhengyu123]

This change causes test errors JDK-8331675. Shouldn't they get addressed first?

Please see latest comment in JDK-8331675.

[zhengyu123]

This change causes test errors JDK-8331675. Shouldn't they get addressed first?

JDK-8331675 is a test bug, can we proceed the backport?

[TheRealMDoerr]

This change causes test errors JDK-8331675. Shouldn't they get addressed first?

JDK-8331675 is a test bug, can we proceed the backport?

We should have a workaround or at least problem list the gtest for PPC64. Otherwise this backport would trigger test errors in the update release.

[TheRealMDoerr]

I think it will be ok if we #ifdef out the part of the test which doesn't work on PPC64. What do you think?

[zhengyu123]

I think it will be ok if we #ifdef out the part of the test which doesn't work on PPC64. What do you think?

Seems that [~tschatzl] agrees this test is fault, can we blacklist the test?

[TheRealMDoerr]

Maybe you would like to include openjdk/jdk@9b436d0 in this backport? This would avoid the test failures on PPC.

[bridgekeeper]

@zhengyu123 This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!