RFR: 8253540: InterpreterRuntime::monitorexit should be a JRT_LEAF function [v2]

[Daniel D.Daugherty]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:16:24 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <coleenp at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> That the monitor has already been unlocked, or is a null stacklock monitor has been already checked in the caller, so
>> the code that makes it a JRT_ENTRY_NO_ASYNC is unnecessary.
>> Making it a JRT_LEAF like the compiled method entries makes it safer. We know it can never safepoint and
>> unintentionally install a async exception.
>> Tested with tier1-6.
>
> Coleen Phillimore has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   8253540: InterpreterRuntime::monitorexit should be a JRT_LEAF function

src/hotspot/share/interpreter/interpreterRuntime.cpp line 741:

> 739: #endif
> 740:   oop obj = elem->obj();
> 741:   assert(Universe::heap()->is_in(obj), "must an object");

typo: s/must an/must be an/

src/hotspot/share/interpreter/interpreterRuntime.cpp line 743:

> 741:   assert(Universe::heap()->is_in(obj), "must an object");
> 742:   // The object could become unlocked through a JNI call, which we have no other checks for.
> 743:   // Give a message if CheckJNICalls but ignore.

That comment is a bit misleading. Perhaps:
// Give a fatal message if CheckJNICalls. Otherwise we ignore it.

src/hotspot/share/runtime/sharedRuntime.cpp line 2106:

> 2104: JRT_LEAF(void, SharedRuntime::complete_monitor_unlocking_C(oopDesc* obj, BasicLock* lock, JavaThread* thread))
> 2105:   // The object could become unlocked through a JNI call, which we have no other checks for.
> 2106:   // Give a message if CheckJNICalls but ignore.

That comment is a bit misleading. Perhaps:
// Give a fatal message if CheckJNICalls. Otherwise we ignore it.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/320