Request for review (XS): 8006563: Remove unused ProfileVM_lock

[Rickard Bäckman]

Thanks for the review, David.

/R

On Feb 1, 2013, at 7:59 AM, David Holmes wrote:

> On 1/02/2013 4:54 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
>> That was the idea.
>> However, can I have Ok for checking this into hs24 while waiting?
> 
> Sorry - ignore the hs25 comment - been looking at too many JDK review requests.
> 
> Yes this seems fine for hs24.
> 
> David
> 
>> Thanks
>> /R
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 11:33 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22/01/2013 12:09 AM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
>>>> Yes, that code has changed. Checked in to hs24.
>>> 
>>> Okay but this is a review for hs25 ;-) So I assume that change will be there "real soon now". :)
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>>> /R
>>>> 
>>>> 21 jan 2013 kl. 02:59 skrev David Holmes<david.holmes at oracle.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 18/01/2013 11:45 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
>>>>>> Aleksey,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks for your review!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> a) It was before on of my own changes used in os_solaris.cpp (I think, for synchronization support for Suspend/Resume).
>>>>>> I don't think we wanted something external to mess with that lock.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Seems to be used here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ./os/solaris/vm/os_solaris.cpp:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4265   GetThreadPC_Callback  cb(ProfileVM_lock);
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is this code already undergoing removal as part of the JFR changes?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> David
>>>>> -----
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> b) I've changed the indentation slightly.
>>>>>> Updated webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8006563.2/ (or at least currently copying…)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /R
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 01/18/2013 04:58 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8006563/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Looks good to me (not a Reviewer), modulo:
>>>>>>> a) Are we sure this thing is not acquired in some weird way, i.e.
>>>>>>> through JVMTI, SA, or whatnot?
>>>>>>> b) The formatting of the predicate does not follow it's structure, I
>>>>>>> think it should be:
>>>>>>>     ...
>>>>>>>     this != Interrupt_lock&&
>>>>>>>     !(this == Safepoint_lock&&
>>>>>>>       contains(locks, Terminator_lock)&&
>>>>>>>       SafepointSynchronize::is_synchronizing())) {
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This way it is more obvious SafepointSynchronize::is_synchronizing()) is
>>>>>>> the !(...) group.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Aleksey.
>>>>>> 
>>