On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 18:58:59 GMT, Stefan Karlsson <stef...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > Hi stefank, I think you're right about (1.1) (2.1) (2.2) (1.2) being > > prevented by the current implementation. Is there a reason that the current > > implementation only does the wider locking for release/uncommit? Maybe > > (2.1) (1.1) (1.2) (2.2) isn't much of an issue since it's unlikely that > > another thread would uncommit/release the same base address shortly after > > it's committed/reserved? > > I'm very curious to find out if anyone knows how this could happen without a > race condition hand-over from one thread to another. (See my answer to Stüfe). Stefan, your analysis sounds reasonable. Don't see a hole. The original issue was from me I think, but I've never seen that variant in real life. So, I am fine with leaving that scenario out. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24084#issuecomment-2754989908
