On Thu, 1 May 2025 15:10:09 GMT, Ashutosh Mehra <asme...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Maybe add an assert here? >> >> >> bool success = AOTCodeCache::store_code_blob(...); >> assert(success || !AOTCodeCache::is_dumping_adapters(), ""); > >> assert(success || !AOTCodeCache::is_dumping_adapters(), ""); > > This condtion `!AOTCodeCache::is_dumping_adapters()` in the assert is not > very intuitive. I think what we need to assert is future stores in the aot > code cache are disabled. So having a method like > `AOTCodeCache::is_store_disabled()` would better communicate the intent here. > But I don't mind keeping this condition for this initial PR. I will just > suggest to add a better assert message like: > > ```assert(success || !AOTCodeCache::is_dumping_adapters(), "storing of > adapter must be disabled");``` > > And I think we should also be setting `_adapter_caching` to false in > `report_load_failure` and `report_store_failure` to be consistent, otherwise > we may end up in a situation where `AOTAdapterCaching` is false but > `_adapter_caching` is true. In fact, I feel we should only be setting > `_adapter_caching` and not `AOTAdapterCaching` in `report_load/store_failure` > because `_adapter_caching` is the flag used to gate store/load operations. Thank you, @ashu-mehra. You have good points. I will work on them. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24740#discussion_r2070428589
