RFR: 8359820: Improve handshake/safepoint timeout diagnostic messages [v3]

[Thomas Stuefe]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 09:53:33 GMT, Anton Artemov <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> You lost me here.
>> 
>> Here we report a SIGILL being received by thread A, sent by thread B. This information is sure.
>> 
>> Do you mean that thread A was not the intended recipient of the SIGILL?
>
> What I was trying to say is that to rely solely on the non-null value of the "communicative" variable, say `handshakeTimedOutThread` may not be  a good idea, as thread A (SIGILL receiver) may not be able to report the error for some reason. 
> 
> In the `handshake::handle_timeout()` code there is a sleep for 3 seconds. Hypothetically if any other thread receives SIGILL for any other reason within this time, while thread A is busy and can't report an error, it (the other thread) wont't be able to report properly as handshakeTimedOutThread already has a value. Therefore a check is the current thread is handshakeTimedOutThread is needed.

@toxaart to prevent that we are talking at cross purposes, would you mind answering the questions I put in the other thread? https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/26309#issuecomment-3088856848

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26309#discussion_r2215698931