On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 15:43:02 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Okay, I see you point. Unfortunately, I've always referred the platform >> thread with an executed FJP schedular as a carrier thread. The term >> 'carrier' with this meaning is everywhere in the JVMTI code. It looks very >> confusing to call a thread to be a carrier thread only during some phases of >> its execution. > >> Okay, I see you point. Unfortunately, I've always referred the platform >> thread with an executed FJP schedular as a carrier thread. The term >> 'carrier' with this meaning is everywhere in the JVMTI code. It looks very >> confusing to call a thread to be a carrier thread only during some phases of >> its execution. > > Okay, I'm just pointing out that is_passive_carrier_thread looks a bit > strange here as it is testing if a JavaThread is carrying a virtual thread > oop - it's not testing if the thread is owned by the virtual thread > scheduler. I'm still thinking what identifier to use instead of `is_passive_carrier_thread`. Just `is_carrier_thread` is going to be confusing as well. What about `is_carrier_thread_waiting_for_virtual` or `is_carrier_thread_waiting_for_virtual_to_unmount`? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14298#discussion_r1220435738
