On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 13:47:23 GMT, Johan Sjölén <d...@openjdk.java.net> wrote:
> Please review this PR for fixing JDK-8287281. > > I chose a different solution than the one suggested. Looking at all callers > of `Handshake::execute`, it seems that only one depends on `target == > current`. The rest special case that by calling `is_handshake_safe_for` and > `do_thread` directly. I converted the only instance of `Handshake::execute` > with `target == current` to just directly call `do_thread`. > > Furthermore we now explicitly check for this case in `Handshake::execute` > with an assert and document that this should not be done. > > Finally: Should `VirtualThreadGetThreadClosure` and its `do_thread()` body > be inlined instead? We can do this in this PR, imho, but I'm hoping to get > some input on this. > > > Currently running tier1-5 to check if I'm missing something. The tests failed and my assumption was wrong: There are other instances of handshaking with their own thread as target, We reverse the strategy and call `do_thread` directly in `Handshake::execute`. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8992
