On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:06:14 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn <sspit...@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'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`? `is_carrying_carrier_thread`? a bit artificial, but it's a carrier thread and it's carrying a virtual thread ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14298#discussion_r1220541192
