Skip to content

Use buffer size exported from MMTk core #298

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 27, 2025
Merged

Use buffer size exported from MMTk core #298

merged 7 commits into from
Mar 27, 2025

Conversation

k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@k-sareen k-sareen requested a review from wks March 18, 2025 03:59
@k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Requires mmtk/mmtk-core#1285

@caizixian caizixian self-requested a review March 25, 2025 00:08
caizixian
caizixian previously requested changes Mar 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@caizixian caizixian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to bump core version

@k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ugh. I'm stupid. Put the constant in the wrong place.

@k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@qinsoon What is the protocol here? Does the MSRV for MMTk OpenJDK need to be bumped?

@qinsoon
Copy link
Member

qinsoon commented Mar 25, 2025

@qinsoon What is the protocol here? Does the MSRV for MMTk OpenJDK need to be bumped?

Yeah. The MSRV of the binding has to be the same or newer than that of mmtk-core.

@k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Is that a separate PR or the same PR?

@qinsoon
Copy link
Member

qinsoon commented Mar 25, 2025

Is that a separate PR or the same PR?

You can just do it in this PR.

@k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@qinsoon Can you approve this PR?

@k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is really odd... It shouldn't fail since the PR doesn't change the semantics. The only difference is we've upgraded the MMTk core version to be more recent. @qinsoon what are your thoughts on this?

@qinsoon
Copy link
Member

qinsoon commented Mar 27, 2025

This is really odd... It shouldn't fail since the PR doesn't change the semantics. The only difference is we've upgraded the MMTk core version to be more recent. @qinsoon what are your thoughts on this?

No idea. Probably just rerun it first. We saw the same random fails on pmd for GenImmix and StickyImmix: #262

@k-sareen
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I've already re-ran it once

@wks
Copy link
Contributor

wks commented Mar 27, 2025

The pmd benchmark has been failing for a long time. dacapobench/dacapobench#310

BTW, currently the thing that actually blocks this PR from being merged is @caizixian's request for change, not the PMD benchmark.

@k-sareen k-sareen enabled auto-merge (squash) March 27, 2025 02:09
@k-sareen k-sareen dismissed caizixian’s stale review March 27, 2025 02:49

Has been fixed.

@k-sareen k-sareen merged commit 427eab6 into mmtk:master Mar 27, 2025
56 of 57 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@qinsoon qinsoon qinsoon approved these changes

@caizixian caizixian caizixian left review comments

@wks wks Awaiting requested review from wks

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@k-sareen @qinsoon @wks @caizixian