On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 18:47:58 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty <dcu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I think we should add JVMTI_ERROR_THREAD_SUSPENDED as @reinrich says, it is >> possible for someone to sneak in a second suspend request before us. >> >> @dcubed-ojdk it seem like we could be posting >> JvmtiExport::post_monitor_contended_enter() from the ensure_join() which >> locks the threadObj. >> >> So it might be best to treat this the same way as the others? > > By "treat this the same way as the others", you mean check and return either > JVMTI_ERROR_THREAD_NOT_ALIVE or JVMTI_ERROR_THREAD_SUSPENDED as > appropriate when we get a false back from > JvmtiSuspendControl::suspend(current)? > > I'm not sure what this question is about: > >> it seem like we could be posting JvmtiExport::post_monitor_contended_enter() >> from the ensure_join() which locks the threadObj. I'm also unclear what Robbin is referring to. I go back to my original comment that surely JVMTI_ERROR_THREAD_NOT_ALIVE is impossible here? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3191
