Serguei,
On 2013-05-24 11:29, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review the fix for:
bug: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8013945
jbs: https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013945
Open webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2013/hotspot/8013945-JVMTI-JSR292.1/
I agree with the semantic change but I'm not that fond of the duplication.
Instead of duplicating the code you could have a:
MutexLockerEx ml( ( SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint() ? NULL :
MemberNameTable_lock ), Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag );
Or maybe
Mutex* mutex_or_null = SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint() ? NULL :
MemberNameTable_lock;
MutexLockerEx ml(mutex_or_null, Mutex::_no_safepoint_check_flag);
MutexLockerEx already has a null-check in both constructor and destructor.
/Mikael
Summary:
CMS calls InstanceKlass::release_C_heap_structures() concurrently.
The "delete mnt" needs to take MemberNameTable_lock if
!SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint().
Testing:
The vm/mlvm and Nashorn tests, the tests listed in the bug report
Thanks,
Serguei
