RFR: 8255384: Remove special_runtime_exit_condition() check from SS::block() [v3]

Patricio Chilano Mateo pchilanomate at openjdk.java.net
Tue Nov 3 19:06:58 UTC 2020


On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:01:47 GMT, Richard Reingruber <rrich at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Patricio Chilano Mateo has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8255384-SSBlock
>>  - Add explicit bool arg
>>  - Make direct calls instead of using transition wrappers
>>  - v1
>
> Marked as reviewed by rrich (Committer).

> > > In `JavaThread::check_and_handle_async_exceptions()` the block depending on is_at_poll_safepoint() looks like dead code now. I wonder if `ThreadSafepointState::_at_poll_safepoint` could even be DEBUG_ONLY?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I actually thought about doing that in the first version but then I
> > realized that code was already dead even before this change. We only
> > call set_at_poll_safepoint() in handle_polling_page_exception() and the
> > handle_special_runtime_exit_condition() call in SS::block() already
> > excludes checking async exceptions for that case. The call I removed
> > from ~TIVMFH was exactly the same. So I don't see a path where it could
> > be called where is_at_poll_safepoint() returned true.
> > I agree that _at_poll_safepoint should probably be DEBUG_ONLY. Then we
> > should add an assert in check_and_handle_async_exceptions(). Do you
> > think I should do that here or in another bug?
> 
> I'd think you can do it in another bug also. I'm ok either way actually.
Ok, I filed 8255849 to track that. 
Thanks Richard!

Patricio

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/913


More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list