RFR: 8338383: Implement JEP 491: Synchronize Virtual Threads without Pinning [v12]

[Coleen Phillimore]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:33:24 GMT, Patricio Chilano Mateo <pchilanomate at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This is the implementation of JEP 491: Synchronize Virtual Threads without Pinning. See [JEP 491](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337395) for further details.
>> 
>> In order to make the code review easier the changes have been split into the following initial 4 commits:
>> 
>> - Changes to allow unmounting a virtual thread that is currently holding monitors.
>> - Changes to allow unmounting a virtual thread blocked on synchronized trying to acquire the monitor.
>> - Changes to allow unmounting a virtual thread blocked in `Object.wait()` and its timed-wait variants.
>> - Changes to tests, JFR pinned event, and other changes in the JDK libraries.
>> 
>> The changes fix pinning issues for all 4 ports that currently implement continuations: x64, aarch64, riscv and ppc. Note: ppc changes were added recently and stand in its own commit after the initial ones.
>> 
>> The changes fix pinning issues when using `LM_LIGHTWEIGHT`, i.e. the default locking mode, (and `LM_MONITOR` which comes for free), but not when using `LM_LEGACY` mode. Note that the `LockingMode` flag has already been deprecated ([JDK-8334299](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334299)), with the intention to remove `LM_LEGACY` code in future releases.
>> 
>> 
>> ## Summary of changes
>> 
>> ### Unmount virtual thread while holding monitors
>> 
>> As stated in the JEP, currently when a virtual thread enters a synchronized method or block, the JVM records the virtual thread's carrier platform thread as holding the monitor, not the virtual thread itself. This prevents the virtual thread from being unmounted from its carrier, as ownership information would otherwise go wrong. In order to fix this limitation we will do two things:
>> 
>> - We copy the oops stored in the LockStack of the carrier to the stackChunk when freezing (and clear the LockStack). We copy the oops back to the LockStack of the next carrier when thawing for the first time (and clear them from the stackChunk). Note that we currently assume carriers don't hold monitors while mounting virtual threads.
>> 
>> - For inflated monitors we now record the `java.lang.Thread.tid` of the owner in the ObjectMonitor's `_owner` field instead of a JavaThread*. This allows us to tie the owner of the monitor to a `java.lang.Thread` instance, rather than to a JavaThread which is only created per platform thread. The tid is already a 64 bit field so we can ignore issues of the counter wrapping around.
>> 
>> #### General notes about this part:
>> 
>> - Since virtual th...
>
> Patricio Chilano Mateo has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Restore use of atPointA in test StopThreadTest.java
>  - remove interruptible check from conditional in Object::wait

Some more comments and questions on the latest commit, mostly minor.

src/hotspot/share/interpreter/oopMapCache.cpp line 268:

> 266:   }
> 267: 
> 268:   int num_oops() { return _num_oops; }

I can't find what uses this from OopMapCacheEntry.

src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp line 1150:

> 1148:     if (LockingMode != LM_LIGHTWEIGHT && current->is_lock_owned((address)cur)) {
> 1149:       assert(_recursions == 0, "invariant");
> 1150:       set_owner_from_BasicLock(cur, current);  // Convert from BasicLock* to Thread*.

This is nice you don't have to do this anymore.

src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.hpp line 43:

> 41: // ParkEvent instead.  Beware, however, that the JVMTI code
> 42: // knows about ObjectWaiters, so we'll have to reconcile that code.
> 43: // See next_waiter(), first_waiter(), etc.

Also a nice cleanup.  Did you reconcile the JVMTI code?

src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.hpp line 71:

> 69:   bool is_wait()           { return _is_wait; }
> 70:   bool notified()          { return _notified; }
> 71:   bool at_reenter()        { return _at_reenter; }

should these be const member functions?

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#pullrequestreview-2396572570
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1817407075
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1817415918
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1817419797
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21565#discussion_r1817420178