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

[Rickard Bäckman]

That was the idea.
However, can I have Ok for checking this into hs24 while waiting?

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.
>>>>