RFR(s): 8222640: Remove deopt suspend

[Robbin Ehn]

Thanks Dean!

/Robbin

On 2019-04-23 23:17, dean.long at oracle.com wrote:
> 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
>>>
>