RFR: 8255384: Remove special_runtime_exit_condition() check from SS::block() [v3]

[Patricio Chilano Mateo]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:24:00 GMT, Robbin Ehn <rehn at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi Robbin,
>> 
>> Thanks, for looking at this.
>> 
>>> > > How about SafepointMechanism::process_if_requested_with_exit_check(bool check_asyncs)?
>>> 
>>> But _suspend_flag have nothing to do with safepoint polling, handling it with SafepointMechanism doesn't seem right?
>> Yes, but today we are already checking the _suspend_flag cases inside SS::block(), so this would only add a method to explicitly do that if you want, i.e. make it visible. In any case, I'm fine with both ways of doing it. I can leave as it is right now and see if David is fine with that. 
>> 
>> Patricio
>>> Thanks, Robbin
>>> 
>>> > That works for me.
>>> > ## Thanks,
>>> > David
>
>> Hi Robbin,
>> 
>> Thanks, for looking at this.
>> 
>> > > > How about SafepointMechanism::process_if_requested_with_exit_check(bool check_asyncs)?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > But _suspend_flag have nothing to do with safepoint polling, handling it with SafepointMechanism doesn't seem right?
>> > Yes, but today we are already checking the _suspend_flag cases inside SS::block(), so this would only add a method to explicitly do that if you want, i.e. make it visible. In any case, I'm fine with both ways of doing it. I can leave as it is right now and see if David is fine with that.
>> 
>> Patricio
>> 
>> > Thanks, Robbin
>> > > That works for me.
>> > > ## Thanks,
>> > > David
> 
> Skimming a bit, as far as I can see void ThreadSafepointState::handle_polling_page_exception() should use ThreadInVMfromJava and in the other path ThreadInVMfromJavaNoAsyncException.
> No?

@robehn are you okay with SafepointMechanism::process_if_requested_with_exit_check()?

Patricio

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/913