On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 22:06:29 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> But if we are not in interp_only mode isn't it already invalidated? >> >> It does not need to be invalidated if not in `interp_only` mode as it should >> not be used there or has to be explicitly invalidated exactly where it is >> needed (the frame pops cleaning code for plain Continuations). The issue I >> see is only with the test >> `test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ContStackDepthTest` which >> is for plain Continuations. Otherwise, the `invalidate_jvmti_stack()` would >> not be needed. It plays as a workaround to make this test to pass. It seems >> there is a bug related to plain Continuations lurking somewhere. > > My point is we could just unconditionally invalidate. It would do no harm. It > would not be invalidating a curr stack depth that could later be used. Okay, thanks! I'll make it unconditional. I do not see any performance degradation with that. Also, it will keep the `test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ContStackDepthTest` test passed. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27403#discussion_r2377332233
