RFR: 8330171: Lazy W^X switch implementation

[Andrew Haley]

On 4/12/24 18:18, Sergey Nazarkin wrote:
> It is the way in which it is implemented in the current code.

No, it's not. That's not what we do at all.

We don't set W^X when we need it: instead, we set it at certain times in the hope
that it'll be needed. I'm suggesting we should set W^X *exactly* where we need it,
such as at patching methods. Not at VM entry.

Get rid of all the assert_wx_state. If deoptimization needs WXWrite, then it should
set it, not hope for someone else to have done it.