> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are in progress:
> Kitchensink, tiers1-6 (all JVMTI, JDWP, JDI
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 17:57:36 GMT, Patricio Chilano Mateo
wrote:
>> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
>> nosafepoint.
>> The fix includes removal of the function
>> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>>
>> Testing:
>> m
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 14:45:13 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp line 932:
>>
>>> 930: JavaThread* current = JavaThread::current();
>>> 931: HandleMark hm(current);
>>> 932: Handle self_tobj = Handle(current, nullptr);
>>
>> This doesn't have to have the
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:37:51 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are i
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:37:51 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are i
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 14:38:21 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
>> nosafepoint.
>> The fix includes removal of the function
>> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>>
>> Testing:
>> mach5 j
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:37:51 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are i
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:37:51 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are i
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 01:33:16 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
>> Thank you for looking at this PR, David!
>> Please, note a disabler at L938. A safepont can be reached in its destructor.
>> Also, see the comment at L952:
>>
>> 937 {
>> 938 JvmtiVTMSTransitionDisabler disabler(true);
>> 939
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:37:51 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are i
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 01:30:27 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp line 952:
>>
>>> 950: }
>>> 951: // protect thread_oop as a safepoint can be reached in disabler
>>> destructor
>>> 952: self_tobj = Handle(current, thread_oop);
>>
>> If you move this
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 05:09:25 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
>> nosafepoint.
>> The fix includes removal of the function
>> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>>
>> Testing:
>> mach5 jobs a
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:37:51 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are i
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:37:51 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
> nosafepoint.
> The fix includes removal of the function
> `check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
>
> Testing:
> mach5 jobs are i
The rank of JvmtiVTMSTransition_lock is better to be safepoint instead of
nosafepoint.
The fix includes removal of the function
`check_vthread_and_suspend_at_safepoint` which is not needed anymore.
Testing:
mach5 jobs are in progress:
Kitchensink, tiers1-6 (all JVMTI, JDWP, JDI and JDB tests ha
15 matches
Mail list logo
