RFR: 8305994: Guarantee eventual async monitor deflation [v2]

[Volker Simonis]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:56:20 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I agree, I just don't understand why `--_no_progress_cnt` wouldn't have the same effect like your current solution? With `--_no_progress_cnt` in the block for the `GuaranteedAsyncDeflationInterval` case in `is_async_deflation_needed()` a call to `deflate_idle_monitors()` wouldn't increment the initial value of `_no_progress_cnt` which is exactly the same behavior you have now with the introduction of new `_no_progress_allow_updates` parameter.
>
> Ah, I understand. Yes, decrement would work too. But I think the explicit flag is cleaner, if only it took me three comments to understand how would that work :)

Ok, glad we agree on that one now :)

However, I just realized that with the explicit flag you now do not reset `_no_progress_cnt` back to zero in the case where you do deflate monitors in a round triggered by `GuaranteedAsyncDeflationInterval`. Wouldn't it be better to do that?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13474#discussion_r1167110488