RFR(s): 8222640: Remove deopt suspend

[dean.long at oracle.com]

Yes, looks good!

dl

On 4/23/19 12:38 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
> Hi Dean,
>
> Is this what you had in mind:
> diff -r 295029840379 src/hotspot/share/runtime/frame.cpp
> --- a/src/hotspot/share/runtime/frame.cpp       Tue Apr 23 09:58:55 
> 2019 +0200
> +++ b/src/hotspot/share/runtime/frame.cpp       Tue Apr 23 21:32:00 
> 2019 +0200
> @@ -272,4 +272,6 @@
>
>  void frame::deoptimize(JavaThread* thread) {
> +  assert(thread->frame_anchor()->has_last_Java_frame() &&
> +         thread->frame_anchor()->walkable(), "must be");
>    // Schedule deoptimization of an nmethod activation with this frame.
>    assert(_cb != NULL && _cb->is_compiled(), "must be");
>
> Passes t1-5.
>
> v2:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8222640/2/webrev/
> Inc:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8222640/2/inc/webrev/
>
> Thanks, Robbin
>
> On 2019-04-18 06:22, dean.long at oracle.com wrote:
>> In frame::deoptimize(), can we assert that we have an anchor frame 
>> and that it is walkable?
>>
>> dl
>>
>> On 4/17/19 3:09 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>> Adding compiler.
>>>
>>> /Robbin
>>>
>>> On 4/17/19 10:35 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>>> Hi all, please consider this change.
>>>>
>>>> The code for deopt suspend is no longer needed since today the 
>>>> register window
>>>> is always flushed when this code executes. Exactly when this code 
>>>> was needed is not clear, entered via duke changeset 1. I did not 
>>>> dig since we no longer have such use case.
>>>>
>>>> Webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8222640/webrev/
>>>> Issue:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222640
>>>>
>>>> Passes t1-5.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Robbin
>>