RFR (S) 8251336: Shenandoah: assert "only get here when SATB active" after JDK-8244997

[Coleen Phillimore]

On 8/11/20 4:45 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
>
> On 8/11/20 1:48 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Coleen Phillimore 
>>> <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Kim's suggestion for this change looks really good.  I'm re-testing 
>>> this now:
>>>
>>> open webrev at 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/2020/8251336.02/webrev
>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251336
>> In release_oop_handles, because Service_lock is a "special" lock and
>> touched in lots of places, I'd prefer the deletion not happen under
>> the lock.  (I realize this uglifies the code a little bit.)
>
> Because there was no performance reason to use lock free code for 
> this, I add to and clean out the linked list under the Service_lock.  
> I chose a simple implementation because there was no performance or 
> correctness issue to do otherwise.
>
> I'd rather not change this to be ugly unless it's proven to not be 
> correct or performant.

Scratch that.  I see what you mean. Like:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/2020/8251336.03.incr/webrev/index.html

(sorry I had some other questions about making this lock free).

I'm re-testing this version now.

Thanks,
Coleen
>
> thanks,
> Coleen
>
>>
>> Other than that, this looks good.
>>
>