[9] RFR(S): 8059846: InstanceKlass should use MutexLockerEx to acquire OsrList_lock

[Tobias Hartmann]

Hi David,

On 15.10.2014 02:02, David Holmes wrote:
> Tobias's change is fine but I get worried when I see:
>
> // This is a short non-blocking critical region, so the no safepoint check is ok.
>
> as that is only one of the conditions needed to allow locking without safepoint
> checks!

What other conditions have to hold? Do you see a problem here? I think it should 
be fine as this is very old code that never failed before.

Thanks,
Tobias

> David H.
>
> On 15/10/2014 12:58 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Looks good. Should be reviewed by runtime too since changes are in
>> instanceKlass.cpp
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vlaidmir
>>
>> On 10/14/14 5:54 AM, David Chase wrote:
>>> Hello Tobias,
>>>
>>> Not a Reviewer here, but it looks correct to me.
>>> One question — above I see a NEEDS_CLEANUP notation.
>>> Do we know (does someone know?) if it refers to this change?
>>> If so, we could remove that :-).
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 2014-10-14, at 3:55 AM, Tobias Hartmann
>>> <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> please review this small code cleanup that replaces the explicit
>>>> locking of OsrList_lock by a MutexLockerEx instantiation.
>>>>
>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059846
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8059846/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tobias
>>>