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

[Coleen Phillimore]

On 8/12/20 12:00 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 5:02 PM, Coleen Phillimore <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
> Yes, exactly.  That version looks good.

This version passes all the tests so no surprises.  Thanks Kim!
Coleen
>