JDK-8252661 : Change SafepointMechanism terminology to talk less about "blocking"
- Type: Enhancement
- Component: hotspot
- Sub-Component: runtime
- Affected Version: 16
- Priority: P4
- Status: Resolved
- Resolution: Fixed
- Submitted: 2020-09-01
- Updated: 2024-11-22
- Resolved: 2020-09-07
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.
To download the current JDK release, click here.
Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.
To download the current JDK release, click here.
| JDK 16 |
|---|
16 b15Fixed  |
Related Reports
|
Relates :
|
|
|
Relates :
|
Description
The SafepointMechanism class has been used to perform safepoint operations. Now we also perform handshake operations, and soon also concurrent stack processing. Therefore, names such as SafepointMechanism::should_block no longer sound right, when the real questino is whether it should process an operation (be that a safepoint, handshake or whatever else).
Comments
|