stead? We can do this in this PR, imho, but I'm hoping to get
> some input on this.
>
>
> Passes tier1. Running tier2-5.
Johan Sjölén has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Move assert up and remove other assert, rem
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 16:36:01 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> We also no longer need L358 as `current` is now unused.
>
> JavaThread *target = state->get_thread();
> Thread *current = Thread::current();
>
> assert(state != NULL, "sanity check");
>
> The `assert()` on L360 is in the wrong p
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:58:11 GMT, Johan Sjölén wrote:
>> Please review this PR for fixing JDK-8287281.
>>
>> If a thread is handshake safe we immediately execute the closure, instead of
>> going through the regular Handshake process.
>>
>> Finally: Should
stead? We can do this in this PR, imho, but I'm hoping to get
> some input on this.
>
>
> Passes tier1. Running tier2-5.
Johan Sjölén has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- Remove unused variable
- Use current inst
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 07:15:45 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Johan Sjölén has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - do_thread(target) not self
>> - Remove checks for is_handshake_for, instead call H
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 09:45:31 GMT, Johan Sjölén wrote:
>> Please review this PR for fixing JDK-8287281.
>>
>> If a thread is handshake safe we immediately execute the closure, instead of
>> going through the regular Handshake process.
>>
>> Finally: Should
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.
Johan Sjölén has
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.
Johan Sjölén h
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 13:47:23 GMT, Johan Sjölén 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 sp
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.
Johan Sjölén h
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 co
11 matches
Mail list logo
