On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:33:08 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <cole...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I can't remember. There may have been another lock held while this one was >> (which is why we added MUTEX_DEFL to help with that). I'll check. > > This has to be nosafepoint-1 (actually can be nosafepoint) is that it must be > above the rank for the ConcurrentHashTable which is nosafepoint-2. I don't > know why it was nosafepoint-2 before this though, I can't find any lock > ordering that requires this. > > In general we should use the highest lock ordering within the category > (no-safepoint, safepoint) possible to leave room for further locks. Found why it needed to be nosafepoint-1. The DEFL macro is good for the global locks but HandshakeState_lock is not global since there's one per handshake operation. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25267#discussion_r2152204429
